On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025, at 17:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:15:47AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> As you already found, removing an old indirect #include that is > >> no longer needed usually leads to some files breaking. The more > >> impactful your change is in terms of build speed, the more > >> things break! I think in this case, removing linux/err.h and > >> linux/bug.h made very little difference because they are very > >> small files in terms of what else they include. > > > > While this is all true, removing unneeded inclusions rarely can lead to the > > "extra work with a little gain". When there is a replacement to the low > > level ones, it's also an improvement in my opinion and won't be harmful in > > the future. But I agree, that the stuff is way too tangled already and requires > > an enormous work to untangle it, even if doing it structurally. > > The problem I see with prematurely applying small improvements like this > one is that they always cause build regressions, at least if the change > is any good. If we can find some more impactful changes like this one, > we can group them together in a branch and test them a lot better before > they even reach linux-next. > > I mainly want to avoid people getting angry at Raag for repeatedly > breaking their subsystems by pushing small patches one at a time. > > > Do you have your scripts for the showed statistics being published somewhere? > > I had a good set of scripts on an older machine and might still > have some backups of that somewhere, but just hacked up something > ad-hoc today beased on what I remembered from that time. Here > are the snippets that you might find useful. Thank you! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
