Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Cleanup io.h

Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-03T10:31:49Z

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025, at 17:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:15:47AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> As you already found, removing an old indirect #include that is
> >> no longer needed usually leads to some files breaking. The more
> >> impactful your change is in terms of build speed, the more
> >> things break! I think in this case, removing linux/err.h and
> >> linux/bug.h made very little difference because they are very
> >> small files in terms of what else they include.
> >
> > While this is all true, removing unneeded inclusions rarely can lead to the
> > "extra work with a little gain". When there is a replacement to the low
> > level ones, it's also an improvement in my opinion and won't be harmful in
> > the future. But I agree, that the stuff is way too tangled already and requires
> > an enormous work to untangle it, even if doing it structurally.
>
> The problem I see with prematurely applying small improvements like this
> one is that they always cause build regressions, at least if the change
> is any good. If we can find some more impactful changes like this one,
> we can group them together in a branch and test them a lot better before
> they even reach linux-next.
>
> I mainly want to avoid people getting angry at Raag for repeatedly
> breaking their subsystems by pushing small patches one at a time.
>
> > Do you have your scripts for the showed statistics being published somewhere?
>
> I had a good set of scripts on an older machine and might still
> have some backups of that somewhere, but just hacked up something
> ad-hoc today beased on what I remembered from that time. Here
> are the snippets that you might find useful.

Thank you!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko