Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100514-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240312094133.2084996-1-max.kellermann@ionos.com> <58fbe42a-3051-46bf-a3f9-d59da28a9cd7@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <58fbe42a-3051-46bf-a3f9-d59da28a9cd7@redhat.com>
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:27:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKPOu+8AQ8g_bEOBRoLiiO6eYBGj09YiUx=U0QPnB0Csifa6xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Fast kernel headers: split linux/mm.h
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:10=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
> >   include/linux/mm.h                            | 583 +----------------=
-
> >   include/linux/mm/devmap_managed.h             |  37 ++
> >   include/linux/mm/folio_next.h                 |  27 +
>
> Isn't that a bit excessive? Do we really need that many folio headers?

It would technically be possible to have fewer headers by merging
several of those headers back into one, but then the dependencies will
be heavier, and eventually we'd be back at the large "mm.h" mess that
I would like to get rid of.
My patch set constitutes the balance of "not too many headers" vs
"small set of unnecessary dependencies for each including source file"
according to my taste.

Max