MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211222163256.66270-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHNKnsS_1fQh1UL-VX0kXfDp_umMtfSnDwJXWxiBXFdyrK1pYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YcRL8Ttxm8yMj77U@smile.fi.intel.com> <YcRMlp6ux+R0op3Q@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YcRMlp6ux+R0op3Q@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Dec 2021 13:46:05 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHNKnsSuo52J0Az_fNfRUj6P8CCZMWm+SVkYjoik_Py74N6Yzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wwan: Replace kernel.h with the necessary inclusions
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@linaro.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:18 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:14:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:38:44PM +0300, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
>>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Not sure what it's supposed from me to do. The forward declarations are
>> the tighten part of the cleanup (*) and it's exactly what is happening h=
ere,
>> i.e.  replacing kernel.h "with the list of what is really being used".
>>
>> *) Either you need a header, or you need a forward declaration, or rely =
on
>>    the compiler not to be so strict. I prefer the second option out of t=
hree.
>
> Ah, seems indeed the skbuf and netdevice ones can be split. Do you want m=
e to
> resend as series of two?

No. The single patch cleanup looks pretty good.

It might be worth pointing out in the commit message that the other
included headers were removed as they indirectly include the kernel.h
header. This will be helpful for future readers. But I don=E2=80=99t think
such a comment is worth a patch update. So I am Ok if this patch will
be applied as is.

> (Sorry I have sent many similar changes and haven't remembered by heart w=
here
>  I did what exactly, but here it looks natural to cleanup that stuff at t=
he
>  same time, so the question is if it should be a separate change or not)

The patch looks good. Thank you for this hard cleanup work!

--=20
Sergey