On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:20:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:00:08PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:33:31PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:48:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:11:23AM -0600, David Lechner wrote: > > > > > > > In this case, we specifically split up the headers so that the only time you > > > > > would ever include this header is if you need to call functions in this > > > > > namespace (i.e. struct definitions are in linux/spi/offload/types.h which > > > > > doesn't import the namespace). So this doesn't actually seem like a problem > > > > > to me. > > > > > > Indeed - I can't see any case where a user would need the header without > > > > needing the namespace. > > > > > You are looking from the other end. What I'm telling is that anyone who adds > > > a header, automatically gets a namespace. What's the point to have namespace > > > if it won't easily prevent from (ab)using it in the code. I consider putting > > > MODULE_IMPORT_NS() in the headers a bit weird. > > > > Sure, but there's no case where anyone should ever be adding the header > > without adding the namespace which does rather sound like the sort of > > thing where you should just move the namespace addition to the header. > > $ git grep -lw MODULE_IMPORT_NS | wc -l > 651 > > $ git grep -lw MODULE_IMPORT_NS | grep '\.h$' > > drivers/base/firmware_loader/sysfs.h > drivers/iio/adc/ltc2497.h > drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h > ^^^ These ones are probably fine as they are not in include/ > > include/kunit/visibility.h > include/linux/module.h > include/linux/pwm.h > > I believe these three are misuses of MODULE_IMPORT_NS(). Because one may add _Ttwo_, of course, module.h provides the macro :-) > a header just as a "proxy" one (copy'n'paste, for example) and we know that is > real as we saw a lot of code that has semi-random header inclusion blocks. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
