| Message ID | 20211007154407.29746-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kernel.h further split | expand |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h > index f2af4b4aa4e9..5dc679b373da 100644 > --- a/include/linux/list.h > +++ b/include/linux/list.h > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ > #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H > #define _LINUX_LIST_H > > +#include <linux/container_of.h> > +#include <linux/const.h> > #include <linux/types.h> > #include <linux/stddef.h> > #include <linux/poison.h> Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? > -#include <linux/const.h> > -#include <linux/kernel.h> > + > +#include <asm/barrier.h> > > /* > * Circular doubly linked list implementation.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: ... > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? Glad you asked! Yes. Greg and possibly others will come and tell me that I mustn't do two things in one change.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 07:21:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > ... > > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? > > Glad you asked! Yes. Greg and possibly others will come and tell me that > I mustn't do two things in one change. Actually I have to avoid moving const.h. I will change this in v5.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. > > > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h > > index f2af4b4aa4e9..5dc679b373da 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/list.h > > +++ b/include/linux/list.h > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ > > #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H > > #define _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > +#include <linux/container_of.h> > > +#include <linux/const.h> > > #include <linux/types.h> > > #include <linux/stddef.h> > > #include <linux/poison.h> > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-) > > -#include <linux/const.h> > > -#include <linux/kernel.h> > > + > > +#include <asm/barrier.h> > > > > /* > > * Circular doubly linked list implementation.
On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, > > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. > > > > > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. [] > > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h [] > > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ > > > #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H > > > #define _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > > > +#include <linux/container_of.h> > > > +#include <linux/const.h> > > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > #include <linux/stddef.h> > > > #include <linux/poison.h> > > > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? > > On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch > warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of > asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-) As are people that want reverse christmas tree. Neither of which I will do as I think both are poor form at best. If you want, this was a checkpatch reverse christmas tree attempt, as that was more common to some. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1478242438.1924.31.camel@perches.com/
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 05:59:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, > > > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. > > > > > > > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. > [] > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h > [] > > > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ > > > > #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > #define _LINUX_LIST_H > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/container_of.h> > > > > +#include <linux/const.h> > > > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > > #include <linux/stddef.h> > > > > #include <linux/poison.h> > > > > > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order? > > > > On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch > > warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of > > asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-) > > As are people that want reverse christmas tree. > Neither of which I will do as I think both are poor form at best. Reverse xmas tree order is just a matter of style, while alphabetical ordering of headers helps catching duplicate, including when merging branches that both add the same header in different locations. I thus think there's a technical value to it. > If you want, this was a checkpatch reverse christmas tree attempt, > as that was more common to some. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1478242438.1924.31.camel@perches.com/
diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h index f2af4b4aa4e9..5dc679b373da 100644 --- a/include/linux/list.h +++ b/include/linux/list.h @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H #define _LINUX_LIST_H +#include <linux/container_of.h> +#include <linux/const.h> #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/stddef.h> #include <linux/poison.h> -#include <linux/const.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> + +#include <asm/barrier.h> /* * Circular doubly linked list implementation.
When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell, especially when there are circular dependencies are involved. Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)