From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753908AbbEANnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 09:43:19 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:43524 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753539AbbEANnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2015 09:43:17 -0400 Message-ID: <1430487796.2192.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] drivers/scsi: include for modular ufshcd-pltfrm code From: James Bottomley To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vinayak Holikatti , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 06:43:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <554381AB.9060205@windriver.com> References: <1430444867-22342-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <1430444867-22342-10-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <1430447747.4545.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <554381AB.9060205@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 09:37 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > On 15-04-30 10:35 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 21:47 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > >> This file is built off of a tristate Kconfig option and also contains > >> modular function calls so it should explicitly include module.h to > >> avoid compile breakage during header shuffles done in the future. > > > > I don't understand your logic. The ufs code made a design choice to > > consolidate most headers for the hcd code in a local include (ufshcd.h), > > which includes module.h, so why would they explicitly need it here as > > well? And if we follow your logic, why wouldn't they also need to > > duplicate everything else (like the scsi includes)? > > In my original build testing this file failed to compile once the > modular code was moved from init.h to module.h as per the description > in the 0/11. Just as a point of principle, you didn't send the 0/11 patch, so I only have this one to go by. > Perhaps since that testing something else has changed. I will drop this > patch and retest and if it no longer fails, then great. Sounds good. James