mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:41:50 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1238256710.2526.9.camel@ht.satnam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090328155837.GA3503@x200.localdomain>

On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 18:58 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > kenel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaswinder/linux-2.6-Xmas.git x86/core
> > > > 
> > > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput (49):
> > > >       x86: process_32.c include inverse Xmas tree effect
> > > 
> > > What the heck is this?
> > 
> > Does inverse christmas tree effect not translate well. It could perhaps
> > have been more clearly explained.
> > 
> > Getting the includes under control is a good thing and saves everyone
> > time.
> 
> Moving #includes up and down is not getting them under control.

Here is Ingo's response about this effect:

On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 05:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> * Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > >  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > > -#include <linux/stat.h>
> > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > +#include <linux/stat.h>
> > >  #include <linux/io.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mm.h>
> > > -#include <linux/module.h>
> > >  
> > 
> > Just curious about the rule to sort those includes, and why they need
> > to be rearranged.
> 
> Such includes (the 'reverse christmas tree'):
> 
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/mmiotrace.h>
> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
> #include <linux/highmem.h>
> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> #include <linux/vt_kern.h>
> #include <linux/signal.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> #include <linux/string.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/kdebug.h>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/magic.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/mman.h>
> #include <linux/tty.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> 
> #include <asm/kmemcheck.h>
> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> #include <asm/segment.h>
> #include <asm/system.h>
> #include <asm/proto.h>
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/desc.h>
> 
> are used by x86 architecture code (and some other subsystems) to 
> reduce the likelyhood of patch conflicts in commonly modified 
> kernel files.
> 
> Without such ordering developers typically append to the 
> existing list of include files when introducing a new header - 
> creating an almost certain patch conflict. Via the above 
> ordering, new headers get distributed roughly evenly amongst the 
> full range - and thus the chance of patch conflicts is much 
> smaller.
> 
> This way it also looks a bit more structured and bit less messy. 
> It looks unprofessional and sloppy if a .c file starts with a 
> big block of thrown-together include files.
> 
> 	Ingo



  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-28 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-28 14:48 Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-28 15:07 ` Joerg Roedel
2009-03-28 16:48   ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-28 17:16     ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-28 15:07 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2009-03-28 15:55   ` Alan Cox
2009-03-28 15:58     ` Alexey Dobriyan
2009-03-28 16:11       ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput [this message]
2009-03-28 16:28       ` Alan Cox
2009-03-28 19:03   ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-03-28 22:25     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-03-28 22:37       ` Al Viro
2009-03-28 23:31       ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-28 23:34         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-28 23:39           ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-29  0:00             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-29  0:24               ` Al Viro
2009-03-29 10:25               ` Alexey Dobriyan
2009-03-29  0:28             ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-29  1:58               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-29  7:57       ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-28 15:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2009-03-28 23:40   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-29  6:38     ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-29 11:46       ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-29 14:38         ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput
2009-03-28 23:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-29  5:54   ` Jaswinder Singh Rajput

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1238256710.2526.9.camel@ht.satnam \
    --to=jaswinder@kernel.org \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®