linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] staging: lustre: remove libcfs/linux/libcfs.h

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:03:47 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] staging: lustre: remove libcfs/linux/libcfs.h

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:32:01PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16 2018, James Simmons wrote:
> 
> >> This include file is only included in one place,
> >> and only contains a list of other include directives.
> >> So just move all those to the place where this file
> >> is included, and discard the file.
> >> 
> >> One include directive uses a local name ("linux-cpu.h"), so
> >> that needs to be given a proper path.
> >> 
> >> Probably many of these should be remove from here, and moved to
> >> just the files that need them.
> >
> > Nak. Dumping all the extra headers from linux/libcfs.h to libcfs.h is
> > the wrong approach. The one header, libcfs.h, to be the only header
> > in all lustre files is the wrong approach. I have been looking to
> > unroll that mess. I have patch that I need to polish you that I can
> > submit.
> 
> I think we both have the same goal - maybe just different paths to get
> there.  If you have something nearly ready to submit, I'm happy to wait
> for it, then proceed on top of it.

I've taken this patch as it doesn't make anything worse than the total
mess we have now :)

thanks,

greg k-h