[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSazVLj29Ea204ci@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:59:16 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [rft, PATCH v1 1/1] cpumask: Don't use "proxy" headers
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:42:23AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 04:17:51PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 09:39:59PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > > Not fully compile tested, might give some compilation errors
...
> > > -#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >
> > I recall, removing kernel.h from cpumasks was a troublesome exercise
> > back then. But it may be my false memory.
>
> Yeah, there are several headers that are too tangled together.
> At least it builds on my configurations on x86_64.
>
> > Added this for testing in bitmap-for-next.
>
> Thanks, let's see how it will go. But note that it might fall the builds in
> some cases.
So, we survived already a couple of Linux Next integration builds, I believe
we are quite okay with this change and if anything appears, it can be fixed
in a followups.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists