On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:17 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 21:35:06 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 9:21 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:48:08 +0300 > > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > But I understand you and not insisting that you have to go with it. My > > point is that... > > > > > I 'could' just drop the kernel.h where added on the basis we were clearly > > > getting it indirectly. I've not included a whole bunch of other suggestions > > > on that basis. > > > > (Which is probably not a good idea, because explicit in this case is > > better than implicit, i.e. kernel.h is not guaranteed to be included > > by other headers and I have long standing work to actually make sure > > that most of the headers won't require kernel.h!) > > I think I was unclear, what I was proposing was not to touch includes of > kernel.h at all. So not make anything worse, but also not make it any better. > Where added in this set, kernel.h was for things directly in kernel.h, > not the files it includes. Ah, that's good! That was my main point of worry. > > > Note I didn't include a whole bunch of other headers on the basis > > > they were a bit more esoteric. > > > > > > To give an idea of how noisy this is here's the output another file... > > > > ...the tool simply doesn't know anything about kernel and header > > guarantees. That's why it tries play dumb. > > > > If you would like to continue with this, please drop the removal of > > the headers that are not guaranteed to be included by others > > (excluding kernel.h from the equation). > > This is where the confusion lies... I haven't done that (subject to bugs > of course) > > > Otherwise it will become > > someone else's problem to _reinstantiate_ all those headers, and since > > I already had a headache with panic.h, I won't repeat it. Still no tag > > from me, although no explicit NAK (actually opposite, no explicit ACK > > because of the dependencies), you just really need to spend more time > > on this. > > I've not removed any headers on the basis they were guaranteed to be > included by others. The tool assumes the opposite model - everything > should be explicitly included directly in the file where it's used. > For some files it lists 50+ headers. > These patches are very conservative on that front. > > What I haven't done is included everything under the sun that wasn't > already included. e.g. I've not included > linux/device/driver.h on the basis it is definitely included by > linux/device.h and that seems very unlikely to change. > > There are some corner cases that are more interesting - such as whether > we can rely on interrupt.h always including irqreturn.h. Plenty of IIO > drivers don't call anything in interrupt.h because of various wrappers but > do use the return values. So in this case we could switch many of them > to the more specific header, but I haven't done that yet. I guess you may consider a guarantee there. Actually what kernel header mess misses right now is the list of those guarantees. But you see there cases like using dev_err() and struct device * in the same C file, what do you include? Temptation is to go with device.h, but I would go with #include <linux/dev_printk.h> struct device; Not sure if that tool can handle this kind of use. > So, in short, the headers for which includes are removed in this series are > not used at all in the files in question (unless I messed up of course!). Cool! So, let bots and other people have more time on eyeballing this. Will see how it goes. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
