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