linux-kernel - Re: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers

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]

Message-ID: <20090206171400.GA14818@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:14:00 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, dhowells@...hat.com, matthew@....cx,
	chris@...kel.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers_check fix: ia64, fpu.h


* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:33:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:12:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > We cannot see any downside of this patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But we can see upside of this patch is:
> > > > > > 1. No need to protect linux/types.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ in many
> > > > > > files
> > > > > > 2. So we trying to replace multiple #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ with one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The point is:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. If the parent include needs to include linux/types.h to get at C
> > > > >    types _and_ the include file needs to also be included by assembly
> > > > >    code, it itself needs to have #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ to protect those
> > > > >    uses from the assembly code.
> > > > > 
> > > > >    In that case, the linux/types.h include should be contained within
> > > > >    the #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ .. #endif block along with all C only
> > > > >    parts of the header file.
> > > > 
> > > > That makes the code much less clean: putting #include's in the middle of a 
> > > > header is poor style and leads to people failing to consider dependencies. 
> > > > We generally put them to the header portion.
> > > > 
> > > > Putting an #include line in the middle of a header file is a receipe for a 
> > > > dependency hell (it can easily fall inside #ifdefs, can be overlooked, 
> > > > etc.), so it's _strongly_ discouraged (at least on arch/x86).
> > > 
> > > Put them at the top then with an additional ifndef.
> > 
> > So you advocate 40 stupid pairs of #ifdefs spread out, instead of a 
> > _single_, obvious #ifdef in a commonly used header?
> 
> As I see it, if you want all your style points to be adhered to, then yes.
> And I do believe it to be a valid solution.
> 
> Personally, I'd put them nearer the C code.
> 
> That's precisely what I do with the ARM include files.  Never been a
> problem.

I take this that you kind of agree that that removing ugly #ifdefs spread 
out is an upside. You failed to point out any downsides - you just seem to 
claim that you can live without the upsides. That is fine.

	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/