From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE4AFE576 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713874929; cv=none; b=Q/tbjfASh+euWdTqf/wZ5juK7MofouH1m/brjzLET0Gu3gH7PWgl3K3eHnJxeuu6OycurHBUrT8OZFfCOBw3nTeAEapF/UBAKGopfvLBZuBZeiAOwAloJWeGcWtATGvDahOid8OhZQ7e5/xjXeEzxHhif7oPce/s7qdkdwWUfX0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713874929; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QfxAecxSklFDaQtgLbxplA0r+fnYSsdh2xRpjUn6uy4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=B4kHtcs/uG39CvwHeaZBhhSys5B4THZ8MvIJZc0kt/hXS8vKqRgn4CuktUuurdhhMt2GMb/M/Y5j7ZV+GNMm5PCoy7367NsCJ7Zg5rJAjDKrrHUeKy4qr8bbJ8XrAKAG3AEGPwWCYojU/ObB4DfMpc5lYWAC7qIOrl8LxfgZuAc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=BbXKUfsv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="BbXKUfsv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=sOweXI35fJEX7TaL1KY6lKJ4Ci7OIE04l9EyjKhOXZM=; t=1713874926; x=1715084526; b=BbXKUfsvSBzlUUgK0cRUmlPFc5e4GS84pcJ4UsYW4/pdLR7 dk+PWBs9B/VrqIFN6hYhhsoCD4rAN6G47BwYTiaDLtkQoadaBtm4aGz0z2vxsXKh6q/qhFfECtNw/ p0xbf7a/pD4h+vHBMAZ4aMtVDmyLuEvRxHsuJLTjItK2AghyzTHzk8C7CfxcSWGCYR3oU4DslUpnq TPTDY2IH0IttIC1K55HY9tlY7NbKwrbe62cOX5fk/hH5kJd8IKKIpb9GyAs+nxHsufLSzVkmxCP0J hk9jYz+YL6y6gYXG0lI/VbFUQU02jvEJXKLQ6zSirs2id5OHlWl+aywmyJ6HaHAg==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rzF9t-000000027hu-3mGu; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:22:02 +0200 Message-ID: <21cd05c895abc4f4e66190b26632543ff7990b32.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] um: Add an internal header shared among the user code From: Johannes Berg To: Tiwei Bie , richard@nod.at, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com Cc: linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:22:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20240423112457.2409319-1-tiwei.btw@antgroup.com> <20240423112457.2409319-6-tiwei.btw@antgroup.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 20:09 +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > On 4/23/24 7:30 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 19:24 +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > >=20 > > > $(USER_OBJS:.o=3D.%): \ > > > - c_flags =3D -Wp,-MD,$(depfile) $(USER_CFLAGS) -include $(srctree)/i= nclude/linux/kern_levels.h -include user.h $(CFLAGS_$(basetarget).o) > > > + c_flags =3D -Wp,-MD,$(depfile) $(USER_CFLAGS) -include $(srctree)/i= nclude/linux/kern_levels.h \ > > > + -include user.h -include $(srctree)/arch/um/os-Linux/internal.h $(= CFLAGS_$(basetarget).o) > > >=20 > >=20 > > Why not just include it explicitly? >=20 > I think it might be more convenient if we include it implicitly, > especially since there are two levels of directories under os-Linux/. > But I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm also willing to > include it explicitly. Yeah, ok, dunno. > > We do have the warnings? >=20 > Yeah. Without this patch, I can get below warnings with `make ARCH=3Dum d= efconfig && make ARCH=3Dum`: >=20 Sure. I meant, we don't need to hide the include, if we need to add it to some other file, we'll have the warnings as a reminder. :) I don't think anyone today would write the code as it is now ... johannes