On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:09:54 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Sat 2023-08-05 20:50:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > kernel.h is being used as a dump for all kinds of stuff for a long time. > > > sprintf() and friends are used in many drivers without need of the full > > > kernel.h dependency train with it. > > > > > > Here is the attempt on cleaning it up by splitting out sprintf() and > > > friends. > > ... > > > I agree that kernel.h is not the right place. But are there any > > numbers how much separate sprintf.h might safe? > > Maybe, we should not reinvent the wheel and get inspired by > > userspace. > > > > sprintf() and friends are basic functions which most people know > > from userspace. And it is pretty handy that the kernel variants > > are are mostly compatible as well. > > > > IMHO, it might be handful when they are also included similar way > > as in userspace. From my POV printk.h is like stdio.h. And we already > > have include/linux/stdarg.h where the v*print*() function might > > fit nicely. > > > > How does this sound, please? > > Not every user (especially _header_) wants to have printk.h included just for > sprintf.h that may have nothing to do with real output. So, same reasoning > from me as keeping that in kernel.h, i.e. printk.h no better. > If you separate out the sprintf() into its own header and still include that in kernel.h, then for what you said in the other email: > What to do with _headers_ that include kernel.h for no reason other than > sprintf.h (as an example)? Your suggestion, please? It can include sprintf.h (or printk.h or stdio.h, whatever) instead of kernel.h. What's the issue? -- Steve
