Re: [PATCH] openrisc: add forward declaration for struct vm_area_struct

[Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>]

On 2017-09-08 at 17:29:11 +0200, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:25:08AM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> > After removing linux/vmalloc.h from asm-generic/io.h, the following
> > warning occurs on openrisc:
> > 
> >    In file included from arch/openrisc/include/asm/io.h:33:0,
> >                     from include/linux/io.h:25,
> >                     from drivers/tty/serial/earlycon.c:19:
> >    arch/openrisc/include/asm/pgtable.h:424:2: warning: 'struct vm_area_struct' declared inside parameter list
> >      unsigned long address, pte_t *pte)
> >      ^
> [..]
> > @@ -414,6 +414,8 @@ static inline void pmd_set(pmd_t *pmdp, pte_t *ptep)
> >  
> >  extern pgd_t swapper_pg_dir[PTRS_PER_PGD]; /* defined in head.S */
> >  
> > +struct vm_area_struct;
> > +
> 
> Acked-by: Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
> 
> I was kind of wondering whether is better to include linux/mm_types.h or
> linux/vmalloc.h here instead of the forward declaration.  But looking at
> how other architectures do it; about half do the forward declaration, and
> half use an include.  So I guess this is fine.
> 
> I noticed you were getting a lot of these patches done for removing
> linux/vmalloc.h from asm-generic/io.h.   Do you want me to push this
> through my queue or are you planning sending them through another route?

Arnd has applied the patch removing linux/vmalloc.h from
asm-generic/io.h to his testing tree to give it a good amount of testing
before it comes anywhere near linux-next.  I'd say it's fine if you push
this through your queue as long as it hits Linus' tree before my
patch (which Arnd will submit, I suppose?).

Arnd, what would you prefer?