Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: qat - refactor included headers

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Herbert,

On 2023-08-31 05:55, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 05:08:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>
>> Do I understand correctly that you want *ideally* to have THE kernel.h
>> as a _single_ header and that's it?
> 
> My rule of thumb for a .c file is that if you need more than two
> headers directly included by kernel.h then you should just use
> kernel.h.
> 
>> While I understand your motivation as a maintainer, I hate the idea of current
>> kernel.h to be included as a silver bullet to every file because people are not
>> capable to understand this C language part of design. The usage of the proper
>> headers show that developer _thought_ very well about what they are doing in
>> the driver. Neglecting this affects the quality of the code in my opinion.
>> That's why I strongly recommend to avoid kernel.h inclusion unless it's indeed
>> the one that provides something that is used in the driver. Even though, the
>> rest headers also need to be included (as it wasn't done by kernel.h at any
>> circumstances).
> 
> I have no qualms with fixing header files that include kernel.h
> to include whatever it is that they need directly.  That is a
> worthy goal and should be enforced for all new header files.
> 
> I just don't share your enthusiasm about doing the same for .c
> files.

<https://include-what-you-use.org/

Maybe this is helpful, if you didn't know about it.  :)
(I disagree with the forward declarations that are recommended there,
though.)

Cheers,
Alex

> 
> Cheers,

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature