public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Khalid Ali <khaliidcaliy@gmail.com>
Cc: khaliidcaliy@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/entry: Remove unneeded header "common.h"
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:01:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87plf4npaj.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250614194829.10832-1-khaliidcaliy@gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 14 2025 at 19:47, Khalid Ali wrote:
>> The reason why common.h exists is that syscall_user_dispatch() is a
>> internal function, which is on purpose not exposed globally. There is no
>> reason to expose it globally, so it stays where it is.
>> Still there is no strong reason "common.h" could exist, there is no doc
>> explicitly mentions that. 
>
> Why can't we just put the prototype into the source since currently it is the
> only place used is common.c, so we should put it on top of the source. Again don't

No. You need the prototype (aka. declaration) for both the usage site
_and_ the definition.

Do I really have to explain the basic C rules?

> see strong reason why entire header exist for single function, even on
> future if more local definations come we should put on top of the
> source, if there is one single source file using it. This makes
> consistent across the entire kernel codebase which mostly do what i
> mentioned.
>
> The only exception for local headers is if the source file using it is
> too large and using many structures, enums and prototypes, in that
> case it is acceptable.

So you define what's acceptable and not?

> However the decision of creation of that local header with no
> exception makes the header pointless.
>
> I didn't find any kernel doc that describes the decision, so we should
> make it consistent with other subsystems if there is no specific
> reason for that this makes the source file more organized.

I explained it to you already why this header exists and there is a
strong emphasis in some subsystems to not expose functions globaly so
that the internals of the subsystem are encapsulated. That's the only
way you can do that in C and it makes a lot of sense.

This _is_ consistent with the rest of the code and you can argue until
you're blue, this header with the declaration of that function stays.

Thanks,

        tglx

      reply	other threads:[~2025-06-16  7:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-11  7:23 [PATCH] kernel/entry: Remove unneeded header "common.h" Khalid Ali
2025-06-13 16:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-06-14 19:47   ` Khalid Ali
2025-06-16  7:01     ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]

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=87plf4npaj.ffs@tglx \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=khaliidcaliy@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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