On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 05:59:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, > > > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. > > > > > > > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. > [] > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h > [] > > > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ > > > > #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > #define _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/container_of.h> > > > > +#include <linux/const.h> > > > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > > #include <linux/stddef.h> > > > > #include <linux/poison.h> > > > > > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? > > > > On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch > > warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of > > asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-) > > As are people that want reverse christmas tree. > Neither of which I will do as I think both are poor form at best. Reverse xmas tree order is just a matter of style, while alphabetical ordering of headers helps catching duplicate, including when merging branches that both add the same header in different locations. I thus think there's a technical value to it. > If you want, this was a checkpatch reverse christmas tree attempt, > as that was more common to some. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1478242438.1924.31.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
