Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-05-03 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 01:23:12AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > Note that sequence of preprocessor tokens does not depend upon the ifdefs; > > anything under #if 0 *is* tokenized all the same. So it's not even that > > "parsing" (tokenizing, actually) has to be repeated. > > Are you sure ab

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-05-03 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 2018-05-04 00:42, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:14:57AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > >> FWIW, it's not just removing some identifiers from cpp's hash tables, it >> also reduces I/O: Due to our header mess, we have some cyclic includes, >> e.g mm.h -> memremap.h -> mm.h. While

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-05-03 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:14:57AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > FWIW, it's not just removing some identifiers from cpp's hash tables, it > also reduces I/O: Due to our header mess, we have some cyclic includes, > e.g mm.h -> memremap.h -> mm.h. While parsing mm.h, cpp sees the #define > _LINUX

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-05-03 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 2018-05-02 00:13, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:24:44 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan > wrote: > >>> The LOC argument also does not sound very convincing. >> >> When was the last time you did -80 kLOC patch for free? > > That would be the way to do it - sell the idea to Linus, send him

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-05-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:24:44 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > The LOC argument also does not sound very convincing. > > When was the last time you did -80 kLOC patch for free? That would be the way to do it - sell the idea to Linus, send him a script to do it then stand back. The piecemeal app

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-26 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:33:04AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:26:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > There are about 20k header files, none of them has #pragma once. > > Updating that will bring many unnesessry git commits. > > > > I doubt that one more define in

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-26 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:26:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:55:31PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:54:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:35:34AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > Bring /proc into 21s

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:26:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > There are about 20k header files, none of them has #pragma once. > Updating that will bring many unnesessry git commits. > > I doubt that one more define in preprocessor tables is a problem we > should fix. The LOC argument also does

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-26 Thread David Sterba
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:55:31PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:54:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:35:34AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > Bring /proc into 21st century. > > > > Please explain what this actually buys us except f

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-25 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:54:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:35:34AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > Bring /proc into 21st century. > > Please explain what this actually buys us except for being pointlessly > different from the rest of the kernel? Negative LOC

Re: [PATCH] proc: use #pragma once

2018-04-24 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:35:34AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > Bring /proc into 21st century. Please explain what this actually buys us except for being pointlessly different from the rest of the kernel?