linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove __init modifier from header declaration

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, 31 Dec 2007 19:46:24 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, ehabkost@...hat.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	hpa@...or.com, zach@...are.com, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove __init modifier from header declaration

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:12:36AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch removes the __init modifier from an extern function 
> > declaration in acpi.h.
> > 
> > Besides not being strictly needed, it requires the inclusion of 
> > linux/init.h, which is usually not even included directly, increasing 
> > header mess by a lot.
> 
> thanks, applied.
> 
> btw., people have been talking about reducing the include file mess for 
> nearly a decade now,

Some of us are actually doing it. ;-)

> but it didnt get that much better - at least not in 
> include/asm-x86/*.h.

That's because hunting in include/linux/ is much more fruitful -- it
decreases amount of code after preprocessing for everyone. Below are
allyesconfig on x86_64 results for some kernels:

	$ wc ../*.i
	   79018171   229433654  2049266884 ../2.6.18.i
	   86568111   250674099  2245115663 ../2.6.19.i
	   85187296   247470579  2221334183 ../2.6.20.i		<===
	   88645422   242396928  2234855428 ../2.6.21.i
	   93897302   257990496  2377174442 ../2.6.22.i
	   98381373   268683402  2486321956 ../2.6.23.i

E.g. we can have ~1.07% decrease in cpp output despite ~126000 lines
added between .19 and .20.

> So include file dependency flattening patches would 
> be more than welcome as well.

Yup! Provided they're compile-tested sufficiently well.

> (and unlike unification patches they have 
> no expectation of being 100% perfect, so a natural ping-pong of fixes, 
> until the changes are fully correct, would be natural.)

That way you'll never clean anything especially during merge window. ;-)
--
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/