linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xprtrdma: removed unnecessary headers from verbs.c

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: <CAE-cH4rc6gWNcsgm243i=dXQhaAQsC4gEz15GEWZO4HB7Vki3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:35:11 -0800
From: Tanzir Hasan <tanzirh@...gle.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, 
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, 
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>, 
	Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers <nnn@...gle.com>, 
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xprtrdma: removed unnecessary headers from verbs.c

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 3:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/26/23 13:23, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
> > asm-generic/barrier.h and asm/bitops.h are already brought into the
> > header and the file can still be built with their removal.
>
> Brought into which header?
Hi Randy,

Sorry for the poor explanation. I see that I left out the specific header.
The inclusion of linux/sunrpc/svc_rdma.h brings in linux/sunrpc/rpc_rdma.h
This brings in linux/bitops.h which is preferred over asm/bitops.h

> Does this conflict with Rule #1 in Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst ?

Yes, this conflicts with Rule #1. A better version of this patch would be to add
linux/bitops.h to this file directly. The main reason this patch
exists is to clear
out the asm-generic file since those are not preferred. I can do this by either
including just linux/bitops.h or including both linux/bitops.h and
asm/barrier.h.
Would the second approach conform better with Rule #1?

Thanks,
Tanzir