linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] perf config: Bring declarations about config from util/cache.h to util/config.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: <575B6262.6030607@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jun 2016 09:59:14 +0900
From:	Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/5] perf config: Bring declarations about config from
 util/cache.h to util/config.h

Good evening :)

On 06/11/2016 04:06 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:20:43PM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>> On 06/09/2016 10:29 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/cache.h
>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>>>>    #include <subcmd/pager.h>
>>>> +#include "config.h"
>
>>> Why have you added that? Are those config functions used in cache.h?
>
>> Yes, it does. Many source files include cache.h
>> e.g. builtin-annoate.c, util/color.c, builtin-report.c and etc.
>> And They can use perf_config() function including this header file.
>
>> So, If I totally eliminate not only declarations about config
>> but also #include "util/config.h" at util/cache.h,
>> we should add '#include "util/config.h"' to each source file that
>> need perf_config() overall.
>
> Sure, that is how we should do it. We should not include cache.h just to
> get what is in config.h, we should instead include config.h.
>
> This way when we do a change to cache.h we will not be rebuilding all
> those files that depend on it just to get config.h.
>
> What you're doing, removing from cache.h things that shouldn't be there
> in the first place is good, among other things, because of that.
>

Granted!
I've also experienced the situation all those files which include cache.h
are rebuilt after I changed cache.h.
It also seems a problem as you mention.

So, I'll send this patch that reflect what you said with v9.

Have a nice weekend :-D

Thanks,
Taeung