On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 01:16:19PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 10:30:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 02:53:02PM -0500, Yury Norov (NVIDIA) wrote: > > > Tracing is a half of the kernel.h in terms of LOCs, although it's a > > > self-consistent part. Move it to a separate header. > > > > > > This is a pure move, except for removing a few 'extern's. > > > > Yeah, I also have something similar (but half-baked) locally, the Q I > > wanted to > > ask is why a separate header? We have already some of tracing headers. > > Doesn't > > suit well? > > Just as said in the commit message - this part is more or less > self-consistent and debugging-oriented. If someone needs to just > throw trace_printk() in their driver, they will not have to pull > all the heavy tracing machinery.
Please, add a summary of this to it. It will be much clearer and based on it I agree with your judgement. ... > > > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h > > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/math.h> > > > #include <linux/minmax.h> > > > #include <linux/typecheck.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/tracing.h> > > > > There is better place for t*.h, i.e. after static_call_types.h. > > They are poorly sorted for seemingly no good reason. I found the first > t*.h and just put this header next to it. Don't think that placing it > next to static_call_types.h is any better or worse. It's better, because the (sparsed) chain of the sorted one is longer. > > Btw, have you tried to sort alphabetically the bulk in the kernel.h after > > your series. Does it still build? (Just wondering about state of affairs > > with the possible cyclic dependencies.) > > I didn't try. Sorting #include's is not the purpose of the series. I know, I'm _just wondering_. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
