On 11/14/23 05:41, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 08:13:52PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> The #include's are scattered at several places of the file, but it does >> not seem this is needed to prevent any include loops (anymore?) so >> consolidate them at the top. Also move the misplaced kmem_cache_init() >> declaration away from the top. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> mm/slab.h | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h >> index 6e76216ac74e..c278f8b15251 100644 >> --- a/mm/slab.h >> +++ b/mm/slab.h >> @@ -1,10 +1,22 @@ >> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >> #ifndef MM_SLAB_H >> #define MM_SLAB_H >> + >> +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h> >> +#include <linux/list_lru.h> >> +#include <linux/local_lock.h> >> +#include <linux/random.h> >> +#include <linux/kobject.h> >> +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> >> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h> >> +#include <linux/fault-inject.h> >> +#include <linux/kmemleak.h> >> +#include <linux/kfence.h> >> +#include <linux/kasan.h> > > I've seen kernel code style in other places ask that includes be > organized alphabetically. Is the order here in this order for some > particular reason? Hm not aware of the alphabetical suggestion. I usually order by going from more low-level and self-contained headers to the more complex ones that transitively include more, so did that here as well but it's not a precise process.
