| Message ID | 20170503145141.4966-2-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > #include <linux/cpumask.h> > #include <linux/percpu.h> > #include <linux/hardirq.h> > +#include <asm/spinlock.h> linux/spinlock.h? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 05:05:29PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > > --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ > > #include <linux/cpumask.h> > > #include <linux/percpu.h> > > #include <linux/hardirq.h> > > +#include <asm/spinlock.h> > > linux/spinlock.h? Comment in include/linux/spinlock.h says: * here's the role of the various spinlock/rwlock related include * files: * * on SMP builds: * [...] * asm/spinlock.h: contains the arch_spin_*()/etc. lowlevel * implementations, mostly inline assembly code * This, and the fact that include/asm-generic/spinlock.h and arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h doesn't prevent the direct inclusion means, for me, that I should include asm/spinlock.h, because of all that I need only arch_spin_lock() and arch_spin_unlock(). Am I wrong? Yury
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c index cc3ed0ccdfa2..6fb42925b201 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ #include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/percpu.h> #include <linux/hardirq.h> +#include <asm/spinlock.h> #include <asm/qrwlock.h> /*
qrwlock.c calls arch_spin_lock() and arch_spin_unlock() but doesn't include the asm/spinlock.h, where those functions are defined. It may produce "implicit declaration of function" errors. This patch fixes it. Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> --- kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)