From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, josh@joshtriplett.org
Cc: Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in hcd.h
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:03:27 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52B334EF.1090202@cogentembedded.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1312191142501.984-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Hello.
On 12/19/2013 07:48 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> Of course, people have varying opinions on this issue. As far as I
>>> know, there is no fixed policy in the kernel about nested includes.
>> True. I personally prefer the policy of making all headers
>> self-contained, and then only including headers that define things used
>> in the source file. That has the advantage of not including any
>> unnecessary headers if the dependencies shrink, and not requiring
>> changes to multiple source files if the dependencies grow.
>> Any particular objection to making the headers self-contained?
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "self-contained". The only
> reasonable definition I can think of at the moment is that you don't
> get any errors or warnings when you compile the .h file by itself.
> But what use is that in practice? Nobody ever compiles .h files by
> themselves.
It's enough to verify that a .c file containing the given .h file would
not cause errors *located in that .h file*. This is not really such an
improbable situation, e.g. at the early stages of development. I did discover
header fiel errors this way.
> For that matter, how can you tell that you are including only headers
> that define things used in the source file?
I still think that's a whole different issue.
> Remove each #include line,
> one at a time, and see if you then get an error? Do you do this after
> each change to the source file to make sure it remains true over time?
That's what #include cleanup patches are for. Somebody has to do them from
time to time when the #include's accumulate -- they tend to accumulate as
people often forget to remove no longer needed one while removing some feature
from the .c file.
> My point is that the C language design and compiler infrastructure make
> it virtually impossible to enforce any fixed policy.
I don't really see how C language design can justify header files that
once included, require each .c file to #include other headers ahead of them,
each time such header is used. In my opinion, it's just crazy.
> Alan Stern
WBR, Sergei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-19 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-19 10:06 [PATCH 1/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in hcd.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 10:07 ` [PATCH 2/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in configfs.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 10:09 ` [PATCH 3/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in hcd.h Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 15:45 ` Alan Stern
2013-12-19 16:37 ` josh
2013-12-19 16:48 ` Alan Stern
2013-12-19 16:53 ` josh
2013-12-19 18:03 ` Sergei Shtylyov [this message]
2013-12-19 19:48 ` Alan Stern
2013-12-19 17:14 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-12-19 16:38 ` Alan Stern
2013-12-19 17:48 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-12-19 16:21 ` David Laight
2013-12-19 10:10 ` [PATCH 4/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in pci-quirks.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 15:51 ` Alan Stern
2013-12-19 16:00 ` josh
2013-12-19 10:12 ` [PATCH 5/7] drivers: usb: Mark function as static in usbsevseg.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 10:13 ` [PATCH 6/7] drivers: usb: Mark function as static in metro-usb.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 10:14 ` [PATCH 7/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in phy-am335x-control.c Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 16:36 ` [PATCH 1/7] drivers: usb: Include appropriate header file in hcd.c Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-12-19 16:41 ` Rashika Kheria
2013-12-19 16:58 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-12-19 17:33 ` David Laight
2013-12-19 18:35 ` Josh Triplett
2013-12-20 9:40 ` David Laight
2013-12-19 18:34 ` Josh Triplett
2013-12-19 18:22 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52B334EF.1090202@cogentembedded.com \
--to=sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rashika.kheria@gmail.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox