> > > > --- linux-test/include/linux/compat_ioctl.h 2003-03-20 00:08:12.000000000 +0100
> > > > +++ linux/include/linux/compat_ioctl.h 2003-03-19 23:36:24.000000000 +0100
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,641 @@
> > > > +/* List here explicitly which ioctl's are known to have
> > > > + * compatible types passed or none at all...
> > > > + */
> > > > +/* Big T */
> > > > +COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(TCGETA)
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you put the include files needed for all that in there
> > > too?
> >
> > List of includes is *way* shorter than 600 lines of
> > COMPATIBLE_IOCTL. I prefer to keep it simple for now.
>
> I disagree. The big issue with the duplicated code is not how long it
> is, but that it needs N changesets to fix something instead of one.
Well, there are two of them... 600 lines of duplicated code is great
for differences starting to creep in...
> Typically a new ioctl also adds a new include.
> If you keep the includes separated it'll have even more mainteance
> overhead than before (you need N+1 commits to add the new ioctl)
Okay, I'll think what to do with it.
Pavel
-- Horseback riding is like software... ...vgf orggre jura vgf serr. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/