linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.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, 27 Jun 2011 18:57:24 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h>

On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 18:49 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:

> > That's why I think it's safe to include linux/slab.h in bcma_private.h.
> > But if that's just my opinion, everybody think it's wrong idea, I'm OK with it.
> 
> My rule of thumb is: Header file a.h may only include header b.h when 
> a.h needs some definition from b.h. Convenience is never a good reason 
> for nested includes.

Yeah, good rule. Consider if you have a.h, b.h and z.c, z.c needs b.h
but not a.h, and now b.h includes a.h ("for convenience") -- changing
a.h would needlessly recompile z.c. Now, changing slab.h will probably
recompile everything anyway, but still...

johannes

--
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/