[PATCH 03/50] x86/lib/cache-smp.c: fix missing include

Kent Overstreet posted 50 patches 2 years ago
Only 14 patches received!
[PATCH 03/50] x86/lib/cache-smp.c: fix missing include
Posted by Kent Overstreet 2 years ago
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
---
 arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
index 7c48ff4ae8d1..7af743bd3b13 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <asm/paravirt.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/export.h>
 
-- 
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH 03/50] x86/lib/cache-smp.c: fix missing include
Posted by Sohil Mehta 2 years ago
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> index 7c48ff4ae8d1..7af743bd3b13 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
>  #include <linux/smp.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
>  

I believe the norm is to have the linux/ includes first, followed by the
the asm/ ones. Shouldn't this case be the same?

Sohil
Re: [PATCH 03/50] x86/lib/cache-smp.c: fix missing include
Posted by Kent Overstreet 2 years ago
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 04:18:29PM +0530, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> > index 7c48ff4ae8d1..7af743bd3b13 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/cache-smp.c
> > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
> >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> >  #include <linux/export.h>
> >  
> 
> I believe the norm is to have the linux/ includes first, followed by the
> the asm/ ones. Shouldn't this case be the same?

I haven't seen that? I generally do the reverse, simpler includes first,
not that I have any reason for that...
Re: [PATCH 03/50] x86/lib/cache-smp.c: fix missing include
Posted by Sohil Mehta 2 years ago
On 12/19/2023 7:36 AM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 04:18:29PM +0530, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> I believe the norm is to have the linux/ includes first, followed by the
>> the asm/ ones. Shouldn't this case be the same?
> 
> I haven't seen that? I generally do the reverse, simpler includes first,
> not that I have any reason for that...

I couldn't find a kernel Documentation link handy. But, I found this
email from Boris:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190411135547.GH30080@zn.tnic/

I believe at least arch/x86 follows this for the most part. One simple
reason is to make it easier to find headers when a ton of them are
included in the same file.

Sohil