From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AB3D3B992A; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 10:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782729631; cv=none; b=uyISjMZe3MjQF2ih4FO/X2on6arX8GQiV740beEtlB5aUs6GC8WcjX3sNWWA/qYpNb77sMyNNkJo8H38F9suwaj++wJGuiODfIAMPvl1jh3PwGQCkgQQUVE68PNwsFEVnQbFWhP5JrRQ+7oe3bOfbztOZaM3EwcfkeL0O+WGCy8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782729631; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vxYH0dBojRT0Krk1Yd3GbwkK/Gygv0INRhejYhXRifM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HdXGDsBbp2U89dlYajYxQwcVmotZwW/ehr2KGKZWzwQoU2PjHMX6UKgjXs3gYUWIyrIfq2BBtLtczhOYq/75Dz+AE+ZJ8mLTNayzGwGVwJGr1/bubvJJNJLcIPmKfwfOTlbNa1/0YOMiXGKCMNDWpd89N/FWC1QYMNxojJ1MN6k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=bANBICS7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="bANBICS7" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1782729629; x=1814265629; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=vxYH0dBojRT0Krk1Yd3GbwkK/Gygv0INRhejYhXRifM=; b=bANBICS7x/UwQmG/zaMqJ+heZei4VEErQJckQvy/DwVFNDd/Suqy8C9S bb/DA8ZkYHi5keDmTOJZ1ijZ/2EHU2Op6uvcjtSu75x09xaYJQ6Q0S9Ba qUJKUGEJk4cb7JyafknWW5+w8nMDvcPdzV1fHCHTMzDU1IvUZytoF7JIX KrngVuUuExL1kw3rp0CkJzmy+BeRPsgmMusNeMmWv0xMGStqPekQIUBGR CuzpMQH5ufxJG3WOKsbHqBs6671Yct3l0YiyKdC3NM2Bhb/Y0FgIDxlAL KTs0k6hWZt3W1j/irUI3ba2RO8HRlUjvSRuh6KdzhmJOUfEib8OUw0iRR w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: nzfzRoNTRHGN5GH9RJXRfA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 1iA0NDbgROm+KoPV6OH6kw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11831"; a="87252500" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.24,231,1774335600"; d="scan'208";a="87252500" Received: from orviesa004.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.144]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2026 03:40:29 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 8lZxkRkNSdyKXsFY5D7SIw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rxnd8ZR+RLCEjNjo16nXFw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.24,231,1774335600"; d="scan'208";a="255870301" Received: from kniemiec-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.207]) by orviesa004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2026 03:40:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:40:24 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, Baolin Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] hwspinlock: add summary in debugfs Message-ID: References: <20260622085204.54248-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 10:57:14AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: ... > > --- a/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > -#include > > +#include > > According to some quick grepping, there are 102 users of XArray > including this header and 423 users which are not including this header. > Do you think this is a useful improvement to add the header directly > (per subsystem to keep the number of patches limited)? My 2c that we should follow the IWYU principle. XArray header is not generic enough that we may rely on something else to provide it. And hence I'm fully with including that explicitly. That mentioned users simply neglected the principle and I consider that as an inconvenience. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko