Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:30:11 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] uapi: Remove the inclusion of linux/mount.h from
 uapi/linux/fs.h
Message-ID: <20220809123011.7lqq27ms7zmcgaia@wittgenstein>
References: <163410.1659964655@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <163410.1659964655@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 02:17:35PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We're seeing issues in autofs and xfstests whereby linux/mount.h (the UAPI
> version) as included indirectly by linux/fs.h is conflicting with
> sys/mount.h (there's a struct and an enum).

(The linux/mount.h and sys/mount.h is painful for userspace too btw.)

> 
> Would it be possible to just remove the #include from linux/fs.h (as patch
> below) and rely on those hopefully few things that need mount flags that don't
> use the glibc header for them working around it by configuration?
> 
> David
> ---
> uapi: Remove the inclusion of linux/mount.h from uapi/linux/fs.h
>     
> Remove the inclusion of <linux/mount.h> from uapi/linux/fs.h as it
> interferes with definitions in sys/mount.h - but linux/fs.h is needed by
> various things where mount flags and structs are not.
> 
> Note that this will likely have the side effect of causing some build
> failures.
> 
> Reported-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
> cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org
> ---

Yeah, I think this is ok.
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>