linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/22] staging: erofs: remove redundant #include "internal.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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <efc9e26a-1a01-af2b-0e48-90b255b98348@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:31:22 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidu.du@...wei.com>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/22] staging: erofs: remove redundant #include
 "internal.h"

On 2019/7/31 20:54, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/7/31 20:07, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Xiang,
>>
>> On 2019/7/31 15:08, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> On 2019/7/31 15:03, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>>> Because #include "internal.h" is included in xattr.h
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be better to remove "internal.h" in xattr.h, and include them
>>>> both in .c file in where we need xattr definition.
>>>
>>> It seems that all xattr related source files needing internal.h,
>>> and we need "EROFS_V(inode)", "struct erofs_sb_info", ... stuffs in xattr.h,
>>> which is defined in internal.h...
>>
>> Since I checked f2fs', it looks it's okay to don't include internal.h for
>> xattr.h, if .c needs xattr.h, we can just include interanl.h and xattr.h in the
>> head of it, it's safe.
> 
> I think xattr.h should be used independently (all dependencies of xattr.h should
> be included in xattr.h, most of include files behave like that)... Maybe it is
> not a good way to follow f2fs...

Yes, I've confirmed it's fine to do this, let's go ahead. :)

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>