The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     5be542e945cb39a2457aa2cfe8b84aac95ef0f2d
Gitweb:        
https://git.kernel.org/tip/5be542e945cb39a2457aa2cfe8b84aac95ef0f2d
Author:        Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
AuthorDate:    Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:36:50 +10:00
Committer:     Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
CommitterDate: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:19:51 +02:00

lockdep: Move list.h inclusion into lockdep.h

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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
---
 include/linux/lockdep.h       | 1 +
 include/linux/lockdep_types.h | 2 --
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index fd04b9e..7aafba0 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ 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 7b93506..bb35b44 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... :-(

Reply via email to