[v4,4/7] list.h: Replace kernel.h with the necessary inclusions

  When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.

Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
  

On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> 
> Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> index f2af4b4aa4e9..5dc679b373da 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H
>  #define _LINUX_LIST_H
>  
> +#include <linux/container_of.h>
> +#include <linux/const.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  #include <linux/stddef.h>
>  #include <linux/poison.h>

Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?

> -#include <linux/const.h>
> -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/barrier.h>
>  
>  /*
>   * Circular doubly linked list implementation.
  

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?

Glad you asked! Yes. Greg and possibly others will come and tell me that
I mustn't do two things in one change.
  

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 07:21:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?
> 
> Glad you asked! Yes. Greg and possibly others will come and tell me that
> I mustn't do two things in one change.

Actually I have to avoid moving const.h. I will change this in v5.
  

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> > 
> > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/list.h | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> > index f2af4b4aa4e9..5dc679b373da 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/list.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
> >  #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H
> >  #define _LINUX_LIST_H
> >  
> > +#include <linux/container_of.h>
> > +#include <linux/const.h>
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> >  #include <linux/stddef.h>
> >  #include <linux/poison.h>
> 
> Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?

On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch
warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of
asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-)

> > -#include <linux/const.h>
> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/barrier.h>
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Circular doubly linked list implementation.
  

On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> > > 
> > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
[]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
[]
> > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
> > >  #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H
> > >  #define _LINUX_LIST_H
> > > 
> > > +#include <linux/container_of.h>
> > > +#include <linux/const.h>
> > >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > >  #include <linux/stddef.h>
> > >  #include <linux/poison.h>
> > 
> > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?
> 
> On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch
> warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of
> asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-)

As are people that want reverse christmas tree.
Neither of which I will do as I think both are poor form at best.

If you want, this was a checkpatch reverse christmas tree attempt,
as that was more common to some.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1478242438.1924.31.camel@perches.com/
  

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 05:59:18PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:16:35PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu,  7 Oct 2021 18:44:04 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
> > > > especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
> > > > 
> > > > Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
> []
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> []
> > > > @@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
> > > >  #ifndef _LINUX_LIST_H
> > > >  #define _LINUX_LIST_H
> > > > 
> > > > +#include <linux/container_of.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/const.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/stddef.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/poison.h>
> > > 
> > > Is there a reason you didn't quite sort this into alphabetical order?
> > 
> > On a side note, if someone with perle knowledge could add a checkpatch
> > warning for this, I think it would be very nice. I'm a bit tired of
> > asking for alphabetical order in reviews :-)
> 
> As are people that want reverse christmas tree.
> Neither of which I will do as I think both are poor form at best.

Reverse xmas tree order is just a matter of style, while alphabetical
ordering of headers helps catching duplicate, including when merging
branches that both add the same header in different locations. I thus
think there's a technical value to it.

> If you want, this was a checkpatch reverse christmas tree attempt,
> as that was more common to some.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1478242438.1924.31.camel@perches.com/