Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231213223020.2713164-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
 <20231213223020.2713164-4-gnstark@salutedevices.com> <80881d5d-3ae9-4580-84c1-f25b421cc518@csgroup.eu>
 <99882775-af52-49ea-b17d-f3d1f23f8bbe@salutedevices.com> <717727a1-6a99-43ff-b032-b7a20542cca8@csgroup.eu>
In-Reply-To: <717727a1-6a99-43ff-b032-b7a20542cca8@csgroup.eu>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:42:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdLT9cOuKn-d14Dp5Ve2NBXAdHQZWeXTLLjYxCQZZQtEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>,
        "pavel@ucw.cz" <pavel@ucw.cz>, "lee@kernel.org" <lee@kernel.org>,
        "vadimp@nvidia.com" <vadimp@nvidia.com>,
        "mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@gmail.com" <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "longman@redhat.com" <longman@redhat.com>,
        "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "nikitos.tr@gmail.com" <nikitos.tr@gmail.com>,
        "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "kernel@salutedevices.com" <kernel@salutedevices.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:00=E2=80=AFPM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 14/12/2023 =C3=A0 13:48, George Stark a =C3=A9crit :
> > [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@salutedevices.com.
> > D=C3=A9couvrez pourquoi ceci est important =C3=A0
> > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > On 12/14/23 13:06, Christophe Leroy wrote:

...

> >> So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ?
> >
> > I'm not the one who make a choice here. The patch [1] you're talking
> > about was seen by everyone but it seems like no one had shown interest.
> > For me personally approach with #define mutex_destroy is not very usual
> > but if even slight mixing device with mutex.h is unacceptable what else
> > can we do? Avoiding the need to allocate devm slot for empty
> > mutex_destroy is more important.
> >
>
> Why would a forward declaration of struct device in mutex.h be
> unacceptable when it is done in so many headers ?
>
> $ git grep "struct device;" include/ | wc -l
> 164

I believe the main misunderstanding here is where to put the
implementation. AFAIU Christophe wants the implementation to be in the
very same _C_-file where mutex_destroy() is defined. mutex.h in this
case indeed requires the only forward declaration and hence doesn't
need to include device.h.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko