Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: qat - refactor included headers

[Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 05:08:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> Do I understand correctly that you want *ideally* to have THE kernel.h
> as a _single_ header and that's it?

My rule of thumb for a .c file is that if you need more than two
headers directly included by kernel.h then you should just use
kernel.h.

> While I understand your motivation as a maintainer, I hate the idea of current
> kernel.h to be included as a silver bullet to every file because people are not
> capable to understand this C language part of design. The usage of the proper
> headers show that developer _thought_ very well about what they are doing in
> the driver. Neglecting this affects the quality of the code in my opinion.
> That's why I strongly recommend to avoid kernel.h inclusion unless it's indeed
> the one that provides something that is used in the driver. Even though, the
> rest headers also need to be included (as it wasn't done by kernel.h at any
> circumstances).

I have no qualms with fixing header files that include kernel.h
to include whatever it is that they need directly.  That is a
worthy goal and should be enforced for all new header files.

I just don't share your enthusiasm about doing the same for .c
files.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt