On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 03:45:54PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > Maybe something like this could be useful for cleaning up headers (and > maintaining that cleanliness once it has been achieved). What do you think? > > Subject: [PATCH] headerdep: a tool for detecting inclusion cycles in header files Do we actually have inclusion cycles in header files? I remember gcc warning about them when we were working on the parisc port (because we needed includes that differed from x86). Has the new build system got rid of these warnings? I think a more useful tool would be one which mapped something like 'use of down()' to 'needs to include <linux/semaphore.h>'. It needs to be at least somewhat done by hand because there are rules such as 'include linux/spinlock.h to get spinlock_t' (which is actually defined in linux/spinlock_types.h), but you want people to include <linux/completion.h> directly rather than rely on it being pulled in through linux/sched.h, for example. It's further complicated by multi-file drivers, such as qla2xxx. Each file includes qla_def.h which includes a lot of the necessary header files for them ... but then each file will include a few more header files that it needs. So some implicit includes are _good_ and other implicit includes are _bad_ (as they hurt when trying to rationalise the header files). Anyone who likes complexity and fuzzy logic like this want to take a stab at writing such a tool? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
