Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] scanf: break kunit into test cases

[Tamir Duberstein]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > >  #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > >
> > > >  #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > >
> > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > >
> > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> > >
> > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > > have different opinion.
> > >
> > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > to revert this change.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
>
> It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include what
> you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> example.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used
only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.

However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which
implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?