On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:55:52AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 05:08:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Do I understand correctly that you want *ideally* to have THE kernel.h > > as a _single_ header and that's it? > > My rule of thumb for a .c file is that if you need more than two > headers directly included by kernel.h then you should just use > kernel.h. > > > While I understand your motivation as a maintainer, I hate the idea of current > > kernel.h to be included as a silver bullet to every file because people are not > > capable to understand this C language part of design. The usage of the proper > > headers show that developer _thought_ very well about what they are doing in > > the driver. Neglecting this affects the quality of the code in my opinion. > > That's why I strongly recommend to avoid kernel.h inclusion unless it's indeed > > the one that provides something that is used in the driver. Even though, the > > rest headers also need to be included (as it wasn't done by kernel.h at any > > circumstances). > > I have no qualms with fixing header files that include kernel.h > to include whatever it is that they need directly. That is a > worthy goal and should be enforced for all new header files. > > I just don't share your enthusiasm about doing the same for .c > files. I see, thanks for clarifying this. While you are right about *.c files that it's not so critical for them, the kernel.h use is still a burden everywhere in the kernel (at least in the current form). That's why I prefer to exclude it from *.c-files as well. This will reduce amount of work in the future in case we will be capable to clean up the crap from kernel.h and make it sane. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
