On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:18:11PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 2023-08-31 05:55, 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. > > <https://include-what-you-use.org/ > > Maybe this is helpful, if you didn't know about it. :) > (I disagree with the forward declarations that are recommended there, > though.) Yeah, but IWYU is too radical and requires a lot of manual job done in the kernel. Jonathan tried it at some point. I prefer to have a balance here (not to include literally _everything_ what we are using, just generic enough). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko