linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: #include device.h in gadget.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]

Message-ID: <4C360F08.9060304@ru.mvista.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:46:48 +0400
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>,
	Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org>,
	dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: #include device.h in gadget.h

Greg KH wrote:

>>>> gadget.h uses structures defined in device.h, it must include it. In
>>>> most cases, gadget.h is preceded by linux/platform_device.h, but if
>>>> you are grouping headers sanely, device.h may not be pulled in until
>>>> *after* gadget (e.g. mach/msm_device.h), thus gadget.h should not
>>>> rely on something else #including device.h

>>    As well as a number of other headers.

    Totally six, to be precise.

>> I have postaed a patch
>> addressing the missing #include's already.

> Yes I know,

    That was mostly for Patrick.

> and my same statment stands.

    :-/

>>>> include/linux/usb/gadget.h:488: error: field 'dev' has incomplete type
>>> Why not just provide an "empty" prototype for whatever is needed.

>>    Empty prototype of what, 'struct device'? Have you looked at the code at all?

> Nope, I try not to :)

    Right, that file has been "stained" by one #include already (which seems 
to be useless though).

>> 	struct device			dev;

> Ok, that wouldn't work.

    Then let's just leave it as it is. :-)

>>> How about just fixing up the .c file that the problem happens in, to
>>> include device.h first?  Is this an issue in the current tree somehow?

>>    In my opinion, this is just insane approach.

> Sorry, but that seems to go against what the rest of the kernel is
> doing.

    Thus far, I've seen headers satisfying their own dependencies, and people 
accepting patches to add missing #include's to headers. This list was the 
first place where I've learned that the problems should be addressed not where 
they exist but left to be dealt with at every place where a defective header 
is used (and the time wasted on that). I haven't heard any convincing 
arguments for this cause so far...

> thanks,
> greg k-h

WBR, Sergei
--
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/