On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote: ... > > > #include <kunit/test.h> > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h> > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h> > > > #include <linux/module.h> > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h> > > > -#include <linux/printk.h> > > > #include <linux/prandom.h> > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > -#include <linux/string.h> > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h> > > > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 1024 > > > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros. > > > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please? > > > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people > > have different opinion. > > > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there > > are people working in this optimization and they might need > > to revert this change. > > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes. It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
