netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] net: dsa: remove unnecessary phy.h include

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170118.164848.2056429004552152754.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:48:48 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     linux@...linux.org.uk
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] net: dsa: remove unnecessary phy.h include

From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:46:28 +0000

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:37:14PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:14:03 +0000
>> 
>> > Including phy.h and phy_fixed.h into net/dsa.h causes phy*.h to be an
>> > unnecessary dependency for quite a large amount of the kernel.  There's
>> > very little which actually requires definitions from phy.h in net/dsa.h
>> > - the include itself only wants the declaration of a couple of
>> > structures and IFNAMSIZ.
>> > 
>> > Add linux/if.h for IFNAMSIZ, declarations for the structures, phy.h to
>> > mv88e6xxx.h as it needs it for phy_interface_t, and remove both phy.h
>> > and phy_fixed.h from net/dsa.h.
>> > 
>> > This patch reduces from around 800 files rebuilt to around 40 - even
>> > with ccache, the time difference is noticable.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>> 
>> Applied, thanks.
> 
> Hmm, now that's _really_ interesting.

It got reviewed-by and seemed reasonable.

I am always allowed to use my judgment to turn an RFC into a patch
I actually apply, especially when other developers review the change.

If you read your email now you'll see that I reverted it before
pushing it out, because of the fallout you mention.