linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove 556 unneeded #includes of sched.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:	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:58:05 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove 556 unneeded #includes of sched.h

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:46:44 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:27:40 +0100 (CET)
> Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
> 
> > After Al Viro (finally) succeeded in removing the sched.h #include in 
> > module.h recently, it makes sense again to remove other superfluous 
> > sched.h includes.
> 
> Why are they "superfluous"?  Because those compilation
> units pick up sched.h indirectly, via other includes?

I'm half done with a patch to remove includes of smp_lock.h.
For the files that I have patched, I checked each source file
for all interfaces in smp_lock.h to verify that none of them
are used, so the #include is just waste.

> If so, is that a thing we want to do?

Nope.

---
~Randy
-
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/