Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Cleanup io.h

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:41:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 07:41:55PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 06:11:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, at 16:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:37:45PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > >> This series attempts to cleanup io.h with "include what you use" approach.
> > > >> This depends on changes available on immutable tag[1].
> > > >> 
> > > >> Although this series is too trivial in the grand scheme of things, it is
> > > >> still a tiny step towards untangling core headers. I have success results
> > > >> from LKP for this series but there can still be corner cases. So perhaps
> > > >> we can queue this on a temporary branch which we can use to submit fixes
> > > >> in case of fallout.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Future plan is to use the excellent analysis[2][3] by Arnd to cleanup other
> > > >> headers.
> > > >> 
> > > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com
> > > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/2342b516-2c6e-42e5-b4f4-579b280823ba@app.fastmail.com
> > > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/f6eb011b-40fb-409a-b2b2-a09d0e770bbd@app.fastmail.com
> > > >
> > > > I believe Arnd can take it through his tree for headers as DRM part is 
> > > > Acked already.
> > > 
> > > I've applied it yesterday and not seen any regression reports so far.
> > 
> > Probably because the immutable tag is already in -next?
> 
> Is there any?

Ah, you mean devres related?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko