Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] net: don't include filter.h from net/sock.h
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 09:20:12AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 17:33:39 -0800 Florian Fainelli wrote: > > It would be nice if we used the number of files rebuilt because of a > > header file change as another metric that the kernel is evaluated with > > from release to release (or even on a commit by commit basis). Food for > > thought. > > Maybe Andy has some thoughts, he has been working on dropping > unnecessary includes of kernel.h, it seems. With this [1] announcement I believe Ingo is the best to tell you if this is a right direction. > It'd be cool to plug something that'd warn us about significant > increases in dependencies into the patchwork build bot. > > I have one more small series which un-includes uapi/bpf.h from > netdevice.h at which point I hope we'll be largely in the clear > from build bot performance perspective. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ydifz+lmewets...@gmail.com/T/#u -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] net: don't include filter.h from net/sock.h
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:49 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > sock.h is pretty heavily used (5k objects rebuilt on x86 after > it's touched). We can drop the include of filter.h from it and > add a forward declaration of struct sk_filter instead. > This decreases the number of rebuilt objects when bpf.h > is touched from ~5k to ~1k. > > There's a lot of missing includes this was masking. Primarily > in networking tho, this time. > > Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski > --- > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211228192519.386913-1-k...@kernel.org/ > - fix build in bond on ia64 > - fix build in ip6_fib with randconfig Nice! Applied. Thanks ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] net: don't include filter.h from net/sock.h
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 04:49:13PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: sock.h is pretty heavily used (5k objects rebuilt on x86 after it's touched). We can drop the include of filter.h from it and add a forward declaration of struct sk_filter instead. This decreases the number of rebuilt objects when bpf.h is touched from ~5k to ~1k. There's a lot of missing includes this was masking. Primarily in networking tho, this time. Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski --- v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211228192519.386913-1-k...@kernel.org/ - fix build in bond on ia64 - fix build in ip6_fib with randconfig For AF_VSOCK: Acked-by: Stefano Garzarella ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] net: don't include filter.h from net/sock.h
On 12/28/2021 4:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: sock.h is pretty heavily used (5k objects rebuilt on x86 after it's touched). We can drop the include of filter.h from it and add a forward declaration of struct sk_filter instead. This decreases the number of rebuilt objects when bpf.h is touched from ~5k to ~1k. There's a lot of missing includes this was masking. Primarily in networking tho, this time. Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Acked-by: Florian Fainelli It would be nice if we used the number of files rebuilt because of a header file change as another metric that the kernel is evaluated with from release to release (or even on a commit by commit basis). Food for thought. -- Florian ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
