[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c06157f3-08ac-4071-9410-82861bbf0fb5@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 09:06:02 +0100
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, jane.chu@...cle.com,
osalvador@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/smp: Explicitly include <linux/thread_info.h>
On 10/12/2024 22:36, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 06:46:07PM +0000, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
>> index ca073f40698f..88e72b414bfa 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>>
>> #include <asm/cpumask.h>
>> #include <asm/current.h>
>> -#include <asm/thread_info.h>
>> +#include <linux/thread_info.h>
> linux/ namespace headers come before asm/ ones, I'd say.
Oops, meant to move it but forgot, thanks!
> But, more importantly, why is this 4 patches instead of 2:
>
> 1. Remove unused __set_memory_prot
> 2. Fixup include hell
Totally fine by me. I wasn't sure that touching
drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest in the same patch as arch/x86 was ok, but
sounds like it is.
- Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists