Re: [PATCH] xsm: removing inclusion of byteorder.h

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17.08.2023 14:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 8/17/23 08:17, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 3:05 PM Daniel P. Smith
>> <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is to complement patch 'common: move Linux-inherited fixed width type
>>> decls to common header' by removing the unnecessary include of
>>> 'asm/byteorder.h'. In the process of removing these includes, the ordering 
>>> was
>>> corrected to comply with current coding style.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   xen/xsm/flask/ss/avtab.c       | 3 +--
>>>   xen/xsm/flask/ss/conditional.c | 9 ++++-----
>>>   xen/xsm/flask/ss/ebitmap.c     | 8 ++++----
>>>   xen/xsm/flask/ss/policydb.c    | 9 ++++-----
>>>   4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> These four files all call le32_to_cpu(), so AFAICT, you are trading an
>> explicit dependency for an implicit one.  Is that what you want?
> 
> In fact, no. You comment here caused me to go back and try to see why 
> Jan said they needed to move. I realized there was a misunderstanding 
> about his commit message. He was not saying later, at a point in the 
> future, they need to be moved, but that as a result of his change the 
> inclusion ordering had to be changed. The former is what I understood 
> and thus attempted a build without them to see if it would work. I was 
> not expecting that conversions would have been able to be implicitly 
> resolved.
> 
> Since I already rebased to latest stable, I can resubmit a v2 with 
> correcting the inclusion order but with byteoder.h inclusion remaining. 
> Though that would render this down to simply a style change patch. Would 
> that still be acceptable Jan?

Of course, after all you're the maintainer of this code.

Jan