linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] KVM: arm64: vgic: Replace kernel.h with the necessary inclusions

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]

Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 15:45:47 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] KVM: arm64: vgic: Replace kernel.h with the
 necessary inclusions

On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 01:44:31PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:14:28 +0000,
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 06:09:22PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 16:55:52 +0000,
> > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> > > > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> > > > 
> > > > Which circular dependencies? What problem are you solving?
> > > 
> > > In particular moving bitmap_*alloc() APIs to the headers.
> > > 
> > > But this may be a side effect of what I realized during the attempts
> > > of solving that issue. In any case there is no need to take entire
> > > mess of kernel.h in another header.
> > 
> > For the record  `make headerdep` doesn't make any difference with
> > or without this patch. But I consider it's better not to use kernel.h
> > in the headers due to a full mess behind it.
> 
> Can you then please write a commit message that matches what this is
> actually doing instead of mentioning a problem that doesn't seem to
> exist?

Sure, thanks for review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko