From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06BFC433B4 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 18:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC43E61008 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 18:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232183AbhEDSVa (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 14:21:30 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([185.132.182.106]:30918 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231635AbhEDSV0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 14:21:26 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0046668.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 144I76re007189; Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:28 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=selector1; bh=yI6Ml2clRXcMJtwies2mHdCV4zB6gRnE8QVI0zDSqis=; b=tisRkZr/wrgdeQPj0Eo0EGJxkyeO64LlJfodSp5ujquOubFeb263JMs4Nl89NfzQqHVE 8el9w6Xh26K1TOjEkpgXC9N2gUljUiIiQ4AQpChCbbFUb4OmkZUTSBEzAys9wofQx/oP 48dfcItsx5QvknAiJgIT7zbgECxYweMIcuGtQ/q3Eb3+fn54jfyam3iI3UjcWiOH62hQ WuVjVyBhWsLu11hPO4c5gFmnVc9SZn3jGwdLPCBCBe5Lm+RiumvTXHMruUkatLj+GWlU ACQeHH8mUPj0/lcDbACKL6uREgoOgvgoGp5doEMi254bBGDApZXaDSVPYiM7RCFh7G5I fw== Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38akujyuf1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 04 May 2021 20:20:28 +0200 Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 5947F10002A; Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (sfhdag2node3.st.com [10.75.127.6]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 43C12226568; Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lmecxl0889.lme.st.com (10.75.127.48) by SFHDAG2NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:26 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: char: Remove useless includes To: Mathieu Poirier CC: Bjorn Andersson , Ohad Ben-Cohen , , , References: <20210429080639.6379-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20210503174238.GD1699665@xps15> <20210504170530.GD1734971@xps15> From: Arnaud POULIQUEN Message-ID: <7170fdd0-00cd-1486-7b4c-41040ecfff6f@foss.st.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210504170530.GD1734971@xps15> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG1NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.2) To SFHDAG2NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.6) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-04_12:2021-05-04,2021-05-04 signatures=0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/4/21 7:05 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Hi Arnaud, > > [...] > >> >> I started by this one and then I got carried away tested the other include... >> You are right, I just don't follow her the first rule of the "submit checklist" >> >> "If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares that >> facility. Don’t depend on other header files pulling in ones that you use." >> >> That said I just have a doubt for uapi/linux/rpmsg.h that will be include >> by rpmsg.h[2], as these includes are part of the rpmsg framework API, should we >> keep both, considering the rule as strict? > > I red the last paragraph several times I can't understand what you are > trying to convey. Please rephrase, provide more context or detail exactly where > you think we have a problem. There is no problem, just a question before sending an update. As you mention the #include "rpmsg_internal.h" line can be removed, I plan to send a patch V2 for this. That's said before sending a new version I would like to propose to also remove the #include line. The rational to remove it is that include/rpmsg.h would already include in 5.13 [2]. And looking at some frameworks (e.g I2C, TTY) the drivers seem to include only the include/xxx.h and not the uapi/linux/xxx.h in such case. So my question is should I remove #include line? Or do you prefer that i keep it? Hope it is more clear... else please just forget my proposal, I wouldn't want you to waste too much time for a point of detail. Thanks, Arnaud > > Thanks, > Mathieu > > >> >> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submit-checklist.html >> [2] >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20210311140413.31725-3-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com/ >> >> Thanks, >> Arnaud >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mathieu >>> >>>> >>>> #define RPMSG_DEV_MAX (MINORMASK + 1) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>>