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

[Tamir Duberstein]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 2:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:57:47AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I believe he asks the background of the change. And if it made in a separate
> patch it would be clearer to begin with (e.g., Suggested-by tag).
>
> But I don't know how you deducted that it's unwanted. With a separate patch
> we may discuss and see if it's wanted or not. In any case I would like to see
> such a patch.

Thanks for clarifying. Nobody suggested that cleanup. I will remove
printk.h in the 3rd patch as Petr suggested and the remaining headers
in a separate final patch for the next respin.