On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com wrote:
On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
...
#include <kunit/test.h> -#include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/overflow.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> #include <linux/prandom.h> #include <linux/slab.h> -#include <linux/string.h> +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
#define BUF_SIZE 1024
It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed. But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people have different opinion.
I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there are people working in this optimization and they might need to revert this change.
Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for example.
I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.
However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?
I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see such a patch.