Re: [RFC PATCH] file: Wrap locking mechanism for f_pos_lock

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Wed 04-12-24 12:11:02, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > motivation of introducing __f_unlock_pos() in the first place? It has one
> 
> May I venture a guess:
> 
>   CALL    ../scripts/checksyscalls.sh
>   INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
>   INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
>   CC      fs/read_write.o
> In file included from ../fs/read_write.c:12:
> ../include/linux/file.h:78:27: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct file'
>    78 |                 mutex_unlock(&fd_file(f)->f_pos_lock);
>       |                               ~~~~~~~~~~^
> 
> If you don't include linux/fs.h before linux/file.h you'd get compilation
> errors and we don't want to include linux/fs.h in linux/file.h.

Ah, subtle ;)

> I wouldn't add another wrapper for lock though. Just put a comment on top of
> __f_unlock_pos().       

Yes, I guess comment is better in that case.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR