[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200729124744.GC2638@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:47:44 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking/qspinlock: Break qspinlock_types.h header
loop
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:28:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This miniseries breaks a header loop involving qspinlock_types.h.
> The issue is that qspinlock_types.h includes atomic.h, which then
> eventually includes kernel.h which could lead back to the original
> file via spinlock_types.h.
How did you run into this, I haven't seen any build failures due to
this.
> The first patch moves ATOMIC_INIT into linux/types.h while the second
> patch actuallys breaks the loop by no longer including atomic.h
> in qspinlock_types.h.
Anyway, the patches look sane enough, I'll go stick them in
tip/locking/core or somesuch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists