[PATCH] missing include in mmc

[PATCH] missing include in mmc

[Al Viro]

AFAICS, fallout from repacing include of blkdev.h with include of bio.h.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
index 71b986b..7ae18ea 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
 #include <linux/crc7.h>
 #include <linux/crc-itu-t.h>
+#include <linux/scatterlist.h>
 
 #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
 #include <linux/mmc/mmc.h>		/* for R1_SPI_* bit values */

Re: [PATCH] missing include in mmc

[David Brownell]

> From viro@ftp.linux.org.uk  Tue Oct 16 17:18:43 2007
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:09:07 +0100
> From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] missing include in mmc
>
> AFAICS, fallout from repacing include of blkdev.h with include of bio.h.

Out of curiousity, which architecture(s) need this?

I did test builds on three, and didn't see a need for it ...



> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> index 71b986b..7ae18ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>  #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
>  #include <linux/crc7.h>
>  #include <linux/crc-itu-t.h>
> +#include <linux/scatterlist.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
>  #include <linux/mmc/mmc.h>		/* for R1_SPI_* bit values */
>

Re: [PATCH] missing include in mmc

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:25:51PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > From viro@ftp.linux.org.uk  Tue Oct 16 17:18:43 2007
> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:09:07 +0100
> > From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
> > To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [PATCH] missing include in mmc
> >
> > AFAICS, fallout from repacing include of blkdev.h with include of bio.h.
> 
> Out of curiousity, which architecture(s) need this?

Umm...   IIRC, m32r had been the first build to step into that, at which point
the missing include had been added; the rest had reached that point later, so
I'm not sure which ones would trigger the same crap.  Not hard to test,
though...

Aha.  m68k as well.

Re: [PATCH] missing include in mmc

[David Brownell]

> > > AFAICS, fallout from repacing include of blkdev.h with include of bio.h.
> > 
> > Out of curiousity, which architecture(s) need this?
>
> Umm...   IIRC, m32r had been the first build to step into that, at which point
> the missing include had been added; the rest had reached that point later, so
> I'm not sure which ones would trigger the same crap.  Not hard to test,
> though...
>
> Aha.  m68k as well.

FWIW this driver originally started out on ColdFire (m68k derived),
a few years back.  :)

Every time I seee a case where architectures don't act the same
with respect to #includes, I count it as an unpleasant surprise.
Not one that's very easy to avoid, unfortunately, but I think it's
been happening less often lately.

Thanks for the fix.

- Dave

Re: [PATCH] missing include in mmc

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > AFAICS, fallout from repacing include of blkdev.h with include of bio.h.
> > > 
> > > Out of curiousity, which architecture(s) need this?
> >
> > Umm...   IIRC, m32r had been the first build to step into that, at which point
> > the missing include had been added; the rest had reached that point later, so
> > I'm not sure which ones would trigger the same crap.  Not hard to test,
> > though...
> >
> > Aha.  m68k as well.

Yesterday I saw a similar issue with drivers/md/dm-mpath-rdac.c, but it
disappeared during the night, and I didn't see an obvious change that
fixed it...

> Every time I seee a case where architectures don't act the same
> with respect to #includes, I count it as an unpleasant surprise.
> Not one that's very easy to avoid, unfortunately, but I think it's
> been happening less often lately.

Simple rule of thumb: he who uses fields of struct xxx should include
the header file that defines struct xxx...

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