Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938696AbcJXJqP (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 05:46:15 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47222 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755895AbcJXJqN (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 05:46:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:45:38 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arch , Andrew Morton , Heiko Carstens , "H. Peter Anvin" , Kees Cook , Andrew Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] thread_info: factor out restart_block Message-ID: <20161024094538.GA15620@leverpostej> References: <1476901693-8492-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1476901693-8492-3-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1262 Lines: 30 On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:31:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Since commit f56141e3e2d9aabf ("all arches, signal: move restart_block > > to struct task_struct"), thread_info and restart_block have been > > logically distinct, yet struct restart_block is still defined in > > . > > > > At least one architecture (erroneously) uses restart_block as part of > > its thread_info, and thus the definition of restart_block must come > > before the include of . Subsequent patches in this > > series need to shuffle the order of includes and definitions in > > , and will make this ordering fragile. > > > > This patch moves the definition of restart_block out to its own header. > > This serves as generic cleanup, logically separating thread_info and > > restart_block, and also makes it easier to avoid fragility. > > Looks entirely reasonable to me. > > Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski Thanks, that's much appreciated. Now that Heiko's patch is in -rc2 I'd like to be able to put these two patches into a stable branch. Before I do that, would you also be happy to ack/review patch 3? Thanks, Mark.