linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Fast kernel headers: split linux/mm.h

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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:27:33 +0100
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Fast kernel headers: split linux/mm.h

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:10 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >   include/linux/mm.h                            | 583 +-----------------
> >   include/linux/mm/devmap_managed.h             |  37 ++
> >   include/linux/mm/folio_next.h                 |  27 +
>
> Isn't that a bit excessive? Do we really need that many folio headers?

It would technically be possible to have fewer headers by merging
several of those headers back into one, but then the dependencies will
be heavier, and eventually we'd be back at the large "mm.h" mess that
I would like to get rid of.
My patch set constitutes the balance of "not too many headers" vs
"small set of unnecessary dependencies for each including source file"
according to my taste.

Max