From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:36:28 +0800 > On 2023/6/13 21:30, Alexander Lobakin wrote: >> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:02:52 +0800 [...] >> I addressed this in my series, which I hope will land soon after yours >> (sending new revision in 24-48 hours), so you can leave it as it is. Or >> otherwise you can pick my solution (or come up with your own :D). > > Do you mean by removing "#include <linux/dma-direction.h>" as dma-mapping.h > has included dma-direction.h? By "I addressed" I meant that I dropped including page_pool.h from skbuff.h, as I also had to include dma-mapping.h to page_pool.h and this implied that half of the kernel started including dma-mapping.h as well for no profit. > But I am not sure if there is any hard rule about not explicitly including > a .h which is implicitly included. What if the dma-mapping.h is changed to not > include dma-direction.h anymore? No hard rule, but I don't see a reason for redundant includes. I usually try to keep include lists as small as possible. > > Anyway, it seems it is unlikely to not include dma-direction.h in dma-mapping.h, > Will remove the "#include <linux/dma-direction.h>" if there is another version > needed for this patchset:) > >> >>> >>> #define PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP BIT(0) /* Should page_pool do the DMA Thanks, Olek
