On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what > > I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used > > only for sprintf, so I made that replacement. > > > > However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which > > implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please? > > I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate > patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag). > > But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch > we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see > such a patch. Thanks for clarifying. Nobody suggested that cleanup. I will remove printk.h in the 3rd patch as Petr suggested and the remaining headers in a separate final patch for the next respin.
