On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:05:25AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > IMO headers should almost invariably be self-contained, instead of > > putting the burden on their users to include other headers to make it > > work. It's a PITA in a project the size of the kernel, or even just the > > drm subsystem, to track these cases when you modify includes in either > > users or the headers being included. > > > > The exception to this are headers that are not to be included directly > > by users, but rather by other headers as an implementation detail. There > > may be such cases in include/linux, but not under include/drm. > > This results in a false check for include/linux/. > > I don’t see much sense in doing this exceptionally for include/drm/ > after we've learned that it doesn't work globally. As far as I'm concerned, I find this extremely helpful for DRM. If only to ensure that the huge amount of work that went into cleaning up our headers doesn't get lost. Nobody here claims that it should be enabled globally, just that it should be enabled for DRM. We already have plenty of exceptions like that for compiler flags, checkpatch, contribution process, etc. so I'm not sure why those would be ok, but additional checks limited to a subsystem wouldn't. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
