Re: [patch] sparc: fix build

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:57:39 +0000 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 06:46:54PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > @@ -20,9 +20,6 @@
> > >  #ifndef _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H
> > >  #define _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H
> > >  
> > > -#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > > -#include <linux/mm.h>
> > > -
> > >  struct mem_cgroup;
> > >  struct page_cgroup;
> > >  struct page;
> > 
> > This really should have been in a separate patch and extensively tested.
> > 
> > Have we checked that every file which directly or indirectly includes
> > memcontrol.h does not have an requirement for rcupdate.h and mm.h, where
> > that requirement was satisfied only via this nested inclusion?  For all
> > architectures and for all config selections?  Think not.
> > 
> > Sadly, removal of nested includes is a *big* deal, and it takes quite a lot
> > of time to get it all shaken down.
> > 
> > If we can confirm that all files (.c and .h) which include memcontrol.h
> > also directly include rcupdate.h and mm.h then we're _probably_ ok (modulo
> > ordering issues).
> > 
> > Otherwise we should perhaps be taking a second look at how to fix the sparc
> > problem.
> 
> I've run allmodconfig builds on a bunch of target, FWIW (essentially the
> same patch).  Note that these includes are recent addition caused by
> added inline function that had since then become a define.  So while I
> agree with your comments in general, in _this_ case it's pretty safe.

OK, thanks, that increases the comfort level,

> Commit that had done it is 3062fc67dad01b1d2a15d58c709eff946389eca4
> and switch to #define is 60c12b1202a60eabb1c61317e5d2678fcea9893f (BTW,
> that warranted mentioning in changelog of the latter).

I just copied-and-pasted your email ;)