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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:56:56 +0900 From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, yishaih@...lanox.com, tariqt@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] net/mlx4: replace <linux/radix-tree.h> with <linux/radix-tree-root.h> 2017-10-09 3:55 GMT+09:00 Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:29:15AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> 2017-10-09 2:00 GMT+09:00 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>: >> > From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> >> > Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 01:10:11 +0900 >> > >> >> The headers >> >> - include/linux/mlx4/device.h >> >> - drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/mlx4.h >> >> require the definition of struct radix_tree_root, but do not need to >> >> know anything about other radix tree stuff. >> >> >> >> Include <linux/radix-tree-root.h> instead of <linux/radix-tree.h> to >> >> reduce the header dependency. >> >> >> >> While we are here, let's add missing <linux/radix-tree.h> where >> >> radix tree accessors are used. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> >> > >> > Honestly this makes things more complicated. >> >> >> The idea is simple; include necessary headers explicitly. >> >> Putting everything into one common header >> means most of C files are forced to parse unnecessary headers. > > It is neglected, only first caller will actually parse that header file, > other callers will check the #ifndef pragma without need to reparse the > whole file. > You completely neglected the point of the discussion. I am trying to not include unnecessary headers at all. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists