From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868941EC01F for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 12:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743510093; cv=none; b=lc1oEGPIShBiHc28mai2ZuqsdOBU81o6KqgdSxnrRtINbul0RUBLIY/Ybfyou27V9M509Y2UqgjKe57d0lDtVBQAARcVLU52UJge981e3y8aHG1zrG7rTMrSYG9TaMGDgnFKHLBonEcRni3VnbfmOJEeic28+oU56N56lRJpuPQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743510093; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rpGVIbmlvEKjUlcxFp84cW7gj9+lvPCnNInS+91z41k=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EqvcTmFiFgIyx6bRHTPiYDJus9jsOivlEY9WjKIhUBdQiplm2YhmJoxpl8oHLOGSaFNc32hp4ZNUTL1ds722ITmF9mVIKdqWRC8sqQWL7+M7xcKMeUD17dUqVs0YUcikfU/KtrwIMJz3YIHIppUrTYjnGR5bvOddEwQKLEZUIVw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=IsNCL6GO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="IsNCL6GO" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1743510092; x=1775046092; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id: mime-version; bh=rpGVIbmlvEKjUlcxFp84cW7gj9+lvPCnNInS+91z41k=; b=IsNCL6GOVMIMPYcDB2wxYoNrD0DhRQKu/osV579i7NVeqjMlvBhZUAjm lC5A1Itvm/IfwkeP29CESL3t1rouI8PBumhZ8I/RXAfQuAPkgE01JPXnH d3nIp1Z6IGPlRDeXMtdSTw//riH4ow/9gDhkpB6KpceY4ly7A2yZMMCZH LS1KoRb81o3OAPXmvZP9ZHg9+ucrvLH2pf1J+ljvC4wXtGQkIrJfRdwgE dE/EC7hwrp2zE876/cleEz+UYfNgfI4bODL14/y4mPQUpf67PVP5L9/s7 Of4aoTSeMhux7pRfSLjHlDU5AzfKz8wHF+iQwC4Kycjv+BffWLbZnn8NN w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1G8iJsJ+SUORsHrVsmsOLA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: r/1+hIshQ9uLzP/K2EyXQA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11391"; a="44541545" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,293,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="44541545" Received: from fmviesa005.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.145]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2025 05:21:30 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: jDLoMHsyTMe7cXXsmpjA3Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: +ca8RUnsTSaxu4Zh2Oav4A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,293,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="131094794" Received: from ncintean-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.246.7]) by fmviesa005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2025 05:21:27 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Jason Gunthorpe , Linus Torvalds , Dave Airlie , dri-devel , LKML Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.15-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20250331133137.GA263675@nvidia.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <87h6394i87.fsf@intel.com> <20250331133137.GA263675@nvidia.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 15:21:24 +0300 Message-ID: <87tt782htn.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Please don't keep it fully isolated to DRM.. This new stuff did find > an error in the fwctl UAPI headers around uuid_t that had gone unnoticed: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f6489337-67c7-48c8-b48a-58603ec15328@paulmck-laptop/raw > > I think that was a valuable report, you just need to find a way to > make the tests it runs more acceptable.. The header checks have existed for uapi headers before, including the, uh, turds, but apparently adding them in drm broke the camel's back. > FWIW, there is a "trick" I like to use for C header files, just ensure > that some C file someplace includes each header file first in the > #include list. It automatically makes the compiler check it is self > contained naturally. You can get pretty far by paying attention to > this detail and it costs nothing at build time. It's a fairly good solution for a lot of cases, but it falls a bit short. I'd additionally like to ensure: - Header guards are in place - There are no kernel-doc warnings - Headers not associated 1:1 with a .c file are also checked Finally, the cost of having to keep checking the headers are in fact included first, and nagging about it in reviews, is not without cost. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel