[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yav/dvIWxuZ59+d6@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 23:53:26 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: split out anon_vma declarations to separate header
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 06:42:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This should not really be part of linux/mm_types.h in the first
> place, as that header is meant to only contain structure defintions
> and need a minimum set of indirect includes itself. While the
> header clearly includes more than it should at this point, let's
> not make it worse by including string.h as well, which would
> pull in the expensive (compile-speed wise) fortify-string logic.
>
> Move the new functions to a separate header that is only included
> where necessary to avoid bloating linux/mm_types.h further.
We already have an mm_inline.h. Why do we need a new header file?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists