linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Explicitly include linux/major.h where it is needed

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:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:58:43 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Explicitly include linux/major.h where it is
 needed

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:27:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> This is in preparation for removing the include of major.h where it is
> not needed.
> 
> These files were found using
> 
> 	grep -E -L '[<"](uapi/)?linux/major\.h' $(git grep -l -w -f /tmp/xx)
> 
> where /tmp/xx contains all the symbols defined in major.h.  There were
> a couple of files in that list that did not need the include since the
> references are in comments.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>

Any reason this had an RFC, but patch 2/2 did not?

They look good to me, I will be glad to take these, but do you still
want reviews from others for this?  It seems simple enough to me...

thanks,

greg k-h