linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] libnvdimm: Don't use "proxy" headers

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]

Message-ID: <aF3CKcVoO4aebaaG@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:56:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] libnvdimm: Don't use "proxy" headers

Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 04:39:07PM -0500, Ira Weiny kirjoitti:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...


> > +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> 
> If we are going in this direction why include ioport vs forward declaring
> struct resource?


I don't know where I looked when added this. This should be io.h.
And yes, we need forward declarations for struct resource and struct kobject.

...


> > -#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > -#include <linux/bio.h>
> 
> I'm leaning toward including bio, module, and sysfs rather than do the
> forward declarations.

Header already uses forward declarations.

> Are forward declarations preferred these days?

Always with the dependency hell we have. For example, if we go your way we
would need to include of.h which is yet another monsteur. I prefer to use
this patch as provided.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko