[v3,0/2] Cleanup io.h

Message

Raag Jadav Feb. 27, 2025, 7:07 a.m. UTC

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/[e-mail]
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]

v2: Fix sparc build errors
v3: Fix nios2 build errors and re-order patches

Raag Jadav (2):
  drm/draw: include missing headers
  io.h: drop unused headers

 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_draw.c | 2 ++
 include/linux/io.h         | 3 ---
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: b8c38ccb2ca52b9a38cfeb9f89abab5d6e713221

Comments

Andy Shevchenko Feb. 27, 2025, 3:25 p.m. UTC | #1

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/[e-mail]
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]

I believe Arnd can take it through his tree for headers as DRM part is Acked already.

Arnd Bergmann Feb. 28, 2025, 5:11 p.m. UTC | #2

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/[e-mail]
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
>
> 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.

    Arnd

Raag Jadav Feb. 28, 2025, 5:41 p.m. UTC | #3

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/[e-mail]
> >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> >
> > 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?

Raag

Andy Shevchenko Feb. 28, 2025, 6:41 p.m. UTC | #4

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/[e-mail]
> > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > >
> > > 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?

Andy Shevchenko Feb. 28, 2025, 6:42 p.m. UTC | #5

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/[e-mail]
> > > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > >
> > > > 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?

Raag Jadav Feb. 28, 2025, 6:45 p.m. UTC | #6

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:42:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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/[e-mail]
> > > > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?

Yeah, couldn't find it on Arnd's tree and I'm not sure if this series
works without it.

Raag

Andy Shevchenko Feb. 28, 2025, 6:52 p.m. UTC | #7

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:45:26PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:42:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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/[e-mail]
> > > > > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find it on Arnd's tree and I'm not sure if this series
> works without it.

But err.h is included in the io.h, no? Or did I misunderstand the point?

Raag Jadav Feb. 28, 2025, 7:08 p.m. UTC | #8

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:52:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:45:26PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 08:42:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > 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/[e-mail]
> > > > > > >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > > > >> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > 
> > Yeah, couldn't find it on Arnd's tree and I'm not sure if this series
> > works without it.
> 
> But err.h is included in the io.h, no? Or did I misunderstand the point?

First patch on the immutable tag moves IOMEM_ERR_PTR() to err.h and here
we're dropping err.h from io.h. So without the tag this series will probably
break IOMEM_ERR_PTR().

Raag