linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ata: Drop unneeded inclusion of kernel.h in the header

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: <728ec7f8-310e-e478-bd53-8784392aee25@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:43:53 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ata: Drop unneeded inclusion of kernel.h in the
 header

On 4/7/21 10:27 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:49AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/7/21 10:03 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:51:31PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>> Thanks, we need to include bits.h.
>>> (It passed my simple build, but appears I have no such driver included)
>>>
>>> Jens, I saw your message, should I send a follow up fix, or a v2?
>>
>> Let's just drop it, not worth it for the risk imho.
> 
> Does it mean I may try again in next cycle?
> 
> Because kernel.h inclusion seems to me too wrong there.

I don't mind taking it, but not on a hunch. If you send something
that has been thought about and went through full compilation, then
you can resend it.

-- 
Jens Axboe