On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:59 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Because we learned this feature is broken. It was broken under include/linux/, so it will be broken under include/drm/ too. Headers are included conditionally. There is no need to make them self-contained in all cases by compile-testing every header detected by the 'find' command. I am very negative about this patch. I hope the upstream maintainers and Linus will not pull this. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
