Re: [PATCH 2/3] kernel.h: move VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS() to sysfs.h

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 11:51:24AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 11/30/25 11:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 12:42:35PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> 
> >> This series was tested by 0-day and LKP. 0-day runs allyesconfig,
> > 
> > AFAICS in the below no configuration had been tested against allYESconfig.
> > All of them are allNOconfig.
> > 
> >> as far as I know. It only sends email in case of errors. LKP is OK, find the
> >> report below.
> > 
> >> All but XFS include it via linux/module.h -> linux/moduleparam.h path.
> >> XFS has a linkage layer: xfs.h -> xfs_linux.h-> linux/module.h, so
> >> it's pretty much the same.
> >>
> >> I think, module.h inclusion path is OK for this macro and definitely
> >> better than kernel.h. Notice, none of them, except for vgpu_dbg,
> >> include kernel.h directly.
> > 
> > Ideally those (especially and in the first place headers) should follow IWYU
> > principle and avoid indirect (non-guaranteed) inclusions.
> 
> Can you (or anyone) get IWYU (software) to work?
> I tried it a few months ago but didn't have the correct magic
> incantation for it.
> (no specifics at the moment)

You should talk to Jonathan Cameron (Cc'ed), he was able to run it to some
extent. AFAIR the state of affairs is that it gives a lot of low-level headers
that we should not really go too deep to (at least for now). That means the
carefully crafted map of guarantees needs to be provided (e.g., if we include
bitmap.h, bitops.h and/or bits.h are guaranteed, so no need to be included).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko