Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-4571-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 20:46:17 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org,
	tj@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	paulmck@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, brauner@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/50] locking/mutex: split out mutex_types.h
Message-ID: <20231219014617.dulwl3mdro6zyblt@moria.home.lan>
References: <20231216024834.3510073-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20231216032651.3553101-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20231216032651.3553101-9-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <7066c278-28e0-45eb-a046-eb684c4a659c@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7066c278-28e0-45eb-a046-eb684c4a659c@redhat.com>

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:53:08AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 12/15/23 22:26, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > -#include <linux/rtmutex.h>
> 
> Including rtmutex.h here means that mutex_types.h is no longer a simple
> header for types only. So unless you also break out a rtmutex_types.h, it is
> inconsistent.

good observation, I'll have to leave it for the next round of cleanups
though since the merge window is approaching and I'll have to redo all
the testing.

> Besides, the kernel/sched code does use mutex_lock/unlock calls quite
> frequently. With this patch, mutex.h will not be directly included. I
> suspect that it is indirectly included via other header files. This may be
> an issue with some configurations.

I've now put it through randconfig testing on every arch that debian
includes a compiler for (excluding sh and xtensa, which throw internal
compiler errors) and that one hasn't come up yet.

could still be included indirectly though - I haven't checked for that
one specifically yet.