[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230109144607.02edd319f9b5e25ee774f9a5@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:46:07 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bit_spinlock: Include <asm/processor.h>
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 20:04:44 +0100 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
> appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
> was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
> (see [1])
>
> It broke on arc.
>
> Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
> This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> #ifndef __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
> #define __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>
> +#include <asm/processor.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/preempt.h>
> #include <linux/atomic.h>
linux/processor.h would be preferable, rather than diving straight into asm/?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists