On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:47:06 +0200 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:37:45 +0200 > Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 May 2019 14:26:51 +0200 > > Michael Mueller <m...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h > > > index 1727180e8ca1..43c007d2775a 100644 > > > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h > > > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/cio.h > > > @@ -328,6 +328,17 @@ static inline u8 pathmask_to_pos(u8 mask) > > > void channel_subsystem_reinit(void); > > > extern void css_schedule_reprobe(void); > > > > > > +extern void *cio_dma_zalloc(size_t size); > > > +extern void cio_dma_free(void *cpu_addr, size_t size); > > > +extern struct device *cio_get_dma_css_dev(void); > > > + > > > +struct gen_pool; > > > > That forward declaration is a bit ugly... > > Can you explain to me what is ugly about it so I can avoid similar > mistakes in the future? > > >I guess the alternative was > > include hell? > > > > What do you mean by include hell? > > I decided to use a forward declaration because the guys that include > "cio.h" are not expected to require the interfaces defined in > linux/genalloc.h. My motivation to do it like this was the principle of > encapsulation. My personal rule-of-thumb is to include the header if it is straightforward enough (e.g. if adding a basic header is enough). If you need to include a header together with all of its friends and family, a forward declaration is probably nicer. And of course, sometimes it is simply needed. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
