Wei Yongjun [off-list ref] writes:
Hi Robert,
On 08/24/2016 12:24 AM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
quoted
Wei Yongjun [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Remove duplicated include.
How so duplicated ? Can you elaborate please ?
Moreover, how do you do think symbol_get() can stay in spitz.c without having
this include ?
file linux/module.h included twice as following:
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h> /* symbol_get ; symbol_put */
...
#include <linux/module.h>
So I think we can remove the dup include.
Ah I see it now.
What you really mean is that you want to revert 12beb346710b ("Merge tag
'pxa-fixes-v4.8' of https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux into randconfig-4.8"),
because :
- I wasn't carefull enough at review time of
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux/commit/5351ca4e70f30e0175265fbf98691528b9a4e990
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux/commit/a3c747b96df66a7eb810fef45f3b9e65614712d9
- and because Paul wasn't very carefull when we look at :
73017a542fd2 ("arm: fix implicit module.h users by adding it to arch/arm as
required.")
So all in all, I'd prefer a revert with Paul's ack please.
And this time I'll go through my pxa/for-next tree, I was a fool to put that in
pxa/fixes.
Cheers.
--
Robert
[Re: [PATCH -next] ARM: pxa: remove duplicated include from spitz.c] On 23/08/2016 (Tue 19:20) Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Wei Yongjun [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hi Robert,
On 08/24/2016 12:24 AM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
quoted
Wei Yongjun [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Remove duplicated include.
How so duplicated ? Can you elaborate please ?
Moreover, how do you do think symbol_get() can stay in spitz.c without having
this include ?
file linux/module.h included twice as following:
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h> /* symbol_get ; symbol_put */
...
#include <linux/module.h>
So I think we can remove the dup include.
Ah I see it now.
What you really mean is that you want to revert 12beb346710b ("Merge tag
'pxa-fixes-v4.8' of https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux into randconfig-4.8"),
because :
- I wasn't carefull enough at review time of
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux/commit/5351ca4e70f30e0175265fbf98691528b9a4e990
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux/commit/a3c747b96df66a7eb810fef45f3b9e65614712d9
- and because Paul wasn't very carefull when we look at :
73017a542fd2 ("arm: fix implicit module.h users by adding it to arch/arm as
required.")
So all in all, I'd prefer a revert with Paul's ack please.
So if possible, please drop the duplicate module.h w/o the comment
vs. a revert. Since it appeared as a pseudo merge and was not my
original commit anyway, this shouldn't be a problem I hope...
You can call it careless if you want, I won't be offended -- FWIW I was
juggling several different streams; one to audit and remove apparently
non-required inclusions of module.h and one to unwind the implicit gpio
inclusion presence before trying to pave the way to fixing _that_ last
minute for 4.8; it was mixing and testing the two simulatenously that
led to the removal and re-addition; which when separating out the latter
caused it to become a duplicate additon as reported above.
Not an excuse; just one of those happenstance corner cases. I'd since
fixed the dup locally and added this to my automated testing:
make includecheck |sort > /tmp/pre-include.txt
<...apply all WIP patches>
make includecheck |sort > /tmp/post-include.txt
diff -u /tmp/pre-include.txt /tmp/post-include.txt > /tmp/inc-delta.txt
if [ -s /tmp/inc-delta.txt ]; then
echo redundant includes changed.
cat /tmp/inc-delta.txt
fi
And this time I'll go through my pxa/for-next tree, I was a fool to
put that in pxa/fixes.
Well, you were not a fool - the fault is mine if it belongs to anyone.
You made a sensible call based on what I wrote in the commit log.
Fortunately it is 100% harmless and if you want to clean it up locally
and do so ASAP, then no problem -- do it and consider it Ack'd.
Thanks,
Paul.
--
Cheers.
-- Robert