Re: [PATCHv4 3/8] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:39:53AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 02:50:15AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > I find it strange that you go after <linux/bitmap.h> which has limited
> > exposure while <linux/acpi.h> and <linux/efi.h> are there already.
> 
> Funny you should mention that:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/YlCKWhMJEMUgJmjF@xxxxxxx

There's still #include <linux/efi.h> in misc.h. You removed one, but
there's a second one for some reason.

Any plans for <linux/acpi.h>? It includes <linux/bitmap.h>:

In file included from ./include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
                 from ./include/linux/smp.h:13,
                 from ./include/linux/lockdep.h:14,
                 from ./include/linux/mutex.h:17,
                 from ./include/linux/kernfs.h:11,
                 from ./include/linux/sysfs.h:16,
                 from ./include/linux/kobject.h:20,
                 from ./include/linux/of.h:17,
                 from ./include/linux/irqdomain.h:35,
                 from ./include/linux/acpi.h:13,
                 from arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.h:3

We will get name conflicts if we try to copy <linux/bitmap.h> stuff.
Hm.

I also underesitmated what is required to be copied because of the
indirect include. The list was only to compile bitmap.c. mem.c (former
unaccepted_memory.c) would require more.

BTW, do we have a white list of linux/ includes that allowed? minmax.h?
math.h? What is the line.

Maybe allow what is included directly or indirectly now? (Yes, it is my
poor attempt to slide under closing door.)

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov