On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 03:56:37PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 01 Apr 2025, Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:42:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Apr 2025, Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> > So, I'd suggest a better way to run this is first build the kernel, > >> > then mine the gcc -MD output (ie stored in the .XX.cmd files) to > >> > generate a list of headers that are actually part of the build, then > >> > only test those. That eliminates all the kconfig problems. Opt out any > >> > special headers that really have a good reason not to be stand alone. > >> > >> I think we'd want the drm headers pass the checks independent of configs > >> (apart from CONFIG_DRM). One size doesn't fit all. > > > > Why? That demand is just making it impossible to make shared > > infrastructure, and I don't think DRM should go off and build its own > > stuff just for DRM in a way that nobody else can use it. > > > > If you really, really, care then you can have your makefile codegen an > > "allheaders.c" that #includes drm/*.h and compile that. > > The v2 series [1] generalizes the header checks and it's no longer in > any way dependent on DRM. For starters, each subsystem/driver needs to > decide for themselves which headers are to be checked.
Yuk. The idea at the top of this email is alot better. Why don't you implement it? > This can be expanded with more clever ways to choose the headers to > check. But we have to start *somewhere*. Bah, that argument only works if nobody has better ideas. There are meaningful technical problems with your approach, and proposed solutions here. Jason
