netdev - Re: [PATCH] xprtrdma: removed unnecessary headers from verbs.c

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: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:53:53 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Tanzir Hasan <tanzirh@...gle.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
 Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
 Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Nick Desaulniers <nnn@...gle.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xprtrdma: removed unnecessary headers from verbs.c

Hi Tanzir,

On 12/26/23 15:35, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 3:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/26/23 13:23, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
>>> asm-generic/barrier.h and asm/bitops.h are already brought into the
>>> header and the file can still be built with their removal.
>>
>> Brought into which header?
> Hi Randy,
> 
> Sorry for the poor explanation. I see that I left out the specific header.
> The inclusion of linux/sunrpc/svc_rdma.h brings in linux/sunrpc/rpc_rdma.h
> This brings in linux/bitops.h which is preferred over asm/bitops.h
> 
>> Does this conflict with Rule #1 in Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst ?
> 
> Yes, this conflicts with Rule #1. A better version of this patch would be to add
> linux/bitops.h to this file directly. The main reason this patch
> exists is to clear
> out the asm-generic file since those are not preferred. I can do this by either
> including just linux/bitops.h or including both linux/bitops.h and
> asm/barrier.h.
> Would the second approach conform better with Rule #1?

Yes, it would IMO.

Where can I find your current working list of what/how to #include?

Thanks.

-- 
#Randy