Hi George, On 15 Dec 2014 19:14:53 -0500 "George Spelvin" <li...@horizon.com> wrote: > > Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Please do *not* mix changes up like this. Split this out into a > > separate patch, please (1 logical change per patch). > > Um... I thought I was doing that. More particularly, the task of > untangling header file dependencies eseemed sufficiently cohesive > that it could be considered one logical change.
Well, given the subject of the commit, I expected a simple change that just did the move (and any immediately associated include changes). You then said "Some other extraneous header files pruned while I was at it" and that part I would expect to be in a separate patch. > It was one round of thinking and analysis about what declarations the > affected files depend on. Which is separate from what VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS() requires. > Although syntactically possible, given the small size of the change (I > deleted a total of 5 #includes, 2 from moduleparam.h and 3 from sysfs.h), > it didn't seem worth breaking it up further. > > > And testing only > > on x86_64 is not "sure" when talking about header file pruning (but at > > least you did the "all" configs). > > Well, the first round was reading and understanding the headers; the > compile was just to make sure. Understood, it was more a "actually changing architectures was more likely to show breakage than building lots of stuff". I guess I see more breakage from pruning includes than most people since I build for multiple architectures more than most. > The files I was messing with (moduleparam.h and sysfs.h) don't have a > lot of architecture-specificness within them. The main danger is that > they're used in a zillion places and some caller might depend on the > over-inclusion. The problem is not the direct includes and direct architecture depenedencies, but the fact that lost of stuff ends up include asm/ include files at some point in the chain and that affects the set of files implicitly included. X86 seems to implicitly include more than some other architectures. > If my haste made me judge wrong, I apologize. Was I very wrong, or > just a bit over the line? Probably just a bit over the line. The advantage of the split would be that when it hits Andrew's tree and then breaks linux-next (for me), I can pick on a smaller patch to get rid of/correct. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
pgp2zlIyro0pO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
