Re: [PATCH 3/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file inhcd.h

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 12/19/2013 07:38 PM, Alan Stern wrote:

> > > > Include header file include/linux/usb.h in include/linux/usb/hcd.h
> > > > because structures usb_device, usb_host_config and usb_interface have
> > > > their definitions in include/linux/usb.h.

> > > > This eliminates the following warning in include/linux/usb/hcd.h:
> > > > include/linux/usb/hcd.h:311:44: warning: âstruct usb_deviceâ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]
> > > > include/linux/usb/hcd.h:412:10: warning: âstruct usb_host_configâ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]
> > > > include/linux/usb/hcd.h:614:9: warning: âstruct usb_interfaceâ declared inside parameter list [enabled by default]

> >      Rashika, would it be enough to forward-declare these structures ISO
> > #include'ing the whole header?

> I agree, that would fix the problem.

   It should also make Greg happier. :-)

> > > Where does this problem show up?

> > > Any file that include linux/usb/hcd.h should include linux/usb.h first.
> > > IMO it would be better to fix the source files that don't do the
> > > includes properly.

> >      Yeah, let's fix the consequency instead of the cause. :-)

> The _real_ cause is that the Linux source code is extremely
> complicated, and it is remarkably difficult to insure that all header
> files have no unsatisfied dependencies.  How do you suggest fixing
> _that_?

> For example, suppose A.c includes B.h, and B.h includes C.h, and C.h
> defines struct foo.  Then A.c can use struct foo freely without
> including C.h directly (and this sort of thing happens quite a lot in
> the kernel source).  But consider what happens when B.h is changed so
> that it no longer includes C.h.

   That's a whole different issue than what we're dealing with.

> > > Of course, people have varying opinions on this issue.  As far as I
> > > know, there is no fixed policy in the kernel about nested includes.

> >      So far, I've only encountered the dubious policy of satisfying header's
> > dependencies in the files that include them is the USB tree.

> Have you looked in any other places?

   I have over 500 patches in the different areas of the kernel, so 
apparently I have if I'm telling you this. The only place where my patch to 
fix a header file so that it would be self-contained has encountered a 
maintainer's resistance was linux-usb. And note that it wasn't merely a case 
like this, where incomplete structure declarations would be enough, it was the 
case where the full structure declarations were needed.

> For that matter, how do you know
> that the USB tree has such a policy?

   From Greg KH. Also, from the late David Brownell.

>  Is it documented anywhere?

   I don't think so.

> Alan Stern

WBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/