Re: mmotm 2009-02-02-17-12 uploaded (x86/nopmd etc.)

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

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:08:46 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > This is getting painful.
> > > 
> > > the include file spaghetti is ... interesting there, and it's historic.
> > > 
> > > I could blame it on highmem, PAE or paravirt - but i'll only blame it on 
> > > paravirt for now because those developers are still around! ;-)
> > > 
> > > Jeremy, any ideas how to reduce the historic dependency mess in that area?
> > > I think we should go on three routes at once:
> > > 
> > >  - agressive splitup and separation of type definitions from method
> > >    declaration (+ inline definitions). The spinlock_types.h / spinlock.h 
> > >    splitup was really nice in solving such dependency problems.
> > 
> > I like this one.  The mixing up of declare-something with use-something
> > is often the source of our woes.
> 
> yes. I mapped this problem area once and this is how the include file 
> spaghetti gets generated in practice:
> 
>   - type A gets declared
>   - type A gets _used_ in the same file in an inline method, BUT,
> 
>       that usage also brings in instantiated use of type X1, X2 and X3.
> 
> if all types are declared like that everywhere, it can be seen (and it's a 
> mathematical certainty) that the only conflict-free way of doing this is to:
> 
>   - initially add random #include lines to bring in type X1, X2 and X3. 
>     Which brings in recursive dependencies from those X1 X2 and X3 files.
> 
>   - when the stuff hits the fan then folks are in a big mess already and 
>     only a deep restructuring could gets them out of it - which they rarely 
>     do in an iterative environment. So they work it around iteratively: 
>     instead of new nice inline methods [which we really prefer] they delay 
>     all the 'usage' instantiation to .c file via the use of CPP macros 
>     [which we hate because they hide bugs and cause bugs].

None of which would happen if we didn't also have an inlining fetish.