Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Move list.h inclusion into lockdep.h

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2020-06-24 22:42:12, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:28:58PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > My "allmodconfig" build has successfully finished with the following extra
> >  fix on top of the two patches:
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> > index aff44d34f4e4..6d606c4036ce 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/list.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/stddef.h>
> >  #include <linux/poison.h>
> >  #include <linux/const.h>
> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/compiler.h>
> 
> Unfortunately this doesn't work because list.h actually does need
> kernel.h for container_of.

Ah, I see.

> However, we can easily fix the loop another way by removing list.h
> from lockdep.h as it doesn't actually use any list macros/functions
> but only the list type which is now in linux/types.h.
> 
> We could either fold this into the lockdep_types patch, or fold it
> into the printk patch, or just leave it as a standalone patch.
> What do you guys think?

It logically belongs to the lockdep_types area.

I think that separate patch is the best solution so that Peter does
not need to rebase tip/locking/header.

> 
> ---8<---
> Currently lockdep_types.h includes list.h without actually using any
> of its macros or functions.  All it needs are the type definitions
> which were moved into types.h long ago.  This potentially causes
> inclusion loops because both are included by many core header
> files.
> 
> This patch moves the list.h inclusion into lockdep.h.  Note that
> we could probably remove it completely but that could potentially
> result in compile failures should any end users not include list.h
> directly and also be unlucky enough to not get list.h via some other
> header file.
> 
> Reported-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

It works with allmodconfig here, so feel free to use:

Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>

Of course, it does not have much value. There might still be another
configuration or architecture that does not work but I would leave
this for test bots.

Best Regards,
Petr

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 3b73cf84f77d..b1ad5c045353 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ extern int lock_stat;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>  
>  #include <linux/linkage.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>  #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep_types.h b/include/linux/lockdep_types.h
> index 7b9350624577..bb35b449f533 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep_types.h
> @@ -32,8 +32,6 @@ enum lockdep_wait_type {
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>  
> -#include <linux/list.h>
> -
>  /*
>   * We'd rather not expose kernel/lockdep_states.h this wide, but we do need
>   * the total number of states... :-(
> -- 
> Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt