Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-818-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <12958640-e6c0-43d3-a710-48ba7873c8f5@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:53:53 -0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xprtrdma: removed unnecessary headers from verbs.c
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tanzir Hasan <tanzirh@google.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
 Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>,
 Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
 Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Nick Desaulniers <nnn@google.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
References: <20231226-verbs-v1-1-3a2cecf11afd@google.com>
 <fadeaa0b-e9d2-4467-97ad-63ba8f7d8646@infradead.org>
 <CAE-cH4rc6gWNcsgm243i=dXQhaAQsC4gEz15GEWZO4HB7Vki3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-cH4rc6gWNcsgm243i=dXQhaAQsC4gEz15GEWZO4HB7Vki3A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Tanzir,

On 12/26/23 15:35, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 3:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/26/23 13:23, Tanzir Hasan wrote:
>>> asm-generic/barrier.h and asm/bitops.h are already brought into the
>>> header and the file can still be built with their removal.
>>
>> Brought into which header?
> Hi Randy,
> 
> Sorry for the poor explanation. I see that I left out the specific header.
> The inclusion of linux/sunrpc/svc_rdma.h brings in linux/sunrpc/rpc_rdma.h
> This brings in linux/bitops.h which is preferred over asm/bitops.h
> 
>> Does this conflict with Rule #1 in Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst ?
> 
> Yes, this conflicts with Rule #1. A better version of this patch would be to add
> linux/bitops.h to this file directly. The main reason this patch
> exists is to clear
> out the asm-generic file since those are not preferred. I can do this by either
> including just linux/bitops.h or including both linux/bitops.h and
> asm/barrier.h.
> Would the second approach conform better with Rule #1?

Yes, it would IMO.

Where can I find your current working list of what/how to #include?

Thanks.

-- 
#Randy