linux-kernel - Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:41:50 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches

On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 18:58 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > kenel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaswinder/linux-2.6-Xmas.git x86/core
> > > > 
> > > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput (49):
> > > >       x86: process_32.c include inverse Xmas tree effect
> > > 
> > > What the heck is this?
> > 
> > Does inverse christmas tree effect not translate well. It could perhaps
> > have been more clearly explained.
> > 
> > Getting the includes under control is a good thing and saves everyone
> > time.
> 
> Moving #includes up and down is not getting them under control.

Here is Ingo's response about this effect:

On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 05:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> * Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > >  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > > -#include <linux/stat.h>
> > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > +#include <linux/stat.h>
> > >  #include <linux/io.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mm.h>
> > > -#include <linux/module.h>
> > >  
> > 
> > Just curious about the rule to sort those includes, and why they need
> > to be rearranged.
> 
> Such includes (the 'reverse christmas tree'):
> 
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/mmiotrace.h>
> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
> #include <linux/highmem.h>
> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> #include <linux/vt_kern.h>
> #include <linux/signal.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> #include <linux/string.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/kdebug.h>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/magic.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/mman.h>
> #include <linux/tty.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> 
> #include <asm/kmemcheck.h>
> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> #include <asm/segment.h>
> #include <asm/system.h>
> #include <asm/proto.h>
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/desc.h>
> 
> are used by x86 architecture code (and some other subsystems) to 
> reduce the likelyhood of patch conflicts in commonly modified 
> kernel files.
> 
> Without such ordering developers typically append to the 
> existing list of include files when introducing a new header - 
> creating an almost certain patch conflict. Via the above 
> ordering, new headers get distributed roughly evenly amongst the 
> full range - and thus the chance of patch conflicts is much 
> smaller.
> 
> This way it also looks a bit more structured and bit less messy. 
> It looks unprofessional and sloppy if a .c file starts with a 
> big block of thrown-together include files.
> 
> 	Ingo


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/