Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:23:32 +0000
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To:     Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kbuild-all@01.org" <kbuild-all@01.org>,
        Alan Hayward <Alan.Hayward@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/sve: Disentangle <uapi/asm/ptrace.h> from
 <uapi/asm/sigcontext.h>
Message-ID: <20181219152332.GC22067@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1544556407-19897-4-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com>
 <201812151729.IIgleZIH%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
 <20181218121307.GA22067@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <9c409567-1beb-e0cb-3efd-589a869ac7c8@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9c409567-1beb-e0cb-3efd-589a869ac7c8@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:11:52PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 18/12/2018 12:14, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 05:20:29PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:

[...]

> >>>> ./usr/include/asm/sve_context.h:30: found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type without #include <linux/types.h>
> > 
> > Since the new header is not meant to be included directly (and has a
> > guard to that effect), we don't strictly need to do anything here.
> > 
> > The way to include <asm/sve_context.h> in userspace is via
> > <asm/sigcontext.h> or <asm/ptrace.h>, both of which include
> > <linux/types.h> first.
> > 
> 
> i think there is no need to explicitly prevent the inclusion of
> the header.
> 
> it is enough to have a comment that it's not supposed to be
> included by user code (so the header can be later refactored).
> 
> and then such automated header checks (or whatever other hacks
> ppl do temporarily) can continue to work.

The guard is in linux-next now AFAIK.

Are you saying that it's likely to break something and needs to be
removed, or it is unnecessary but harmless?

Cheers
---Dave