On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 11:46 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 05:13:39AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Andrew Morton > > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:01:43 -0700 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokho > > > v@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > We can't as we end up including bitmap.h (by the way of > > > > cpumask.h) > > > > form slab.h, so we gen circular dependency. > > > > It's not just so easy. See below. > > > > > That info should have been in the changelog, and probably a code > > > comment. > > > > > > > Maybe if we removed memcg > > > > stuff from slab.h so we do not need to include workqueue.h... > > > > > > Or move the basic slab API stuff out of slab.h into a new > > > header. Or > > > create a new, standalone work_struct.h - that looks pretty simple. > > > > I tried to move out work_struct, it didn't help. There are actually > > several circular dependencies that ends in bitmap.h either way or > > another. > > > > First one is > > > > slab.h -> gfp.h -> mmzone.h -> nodemask.h -> bitmap.h > > > > And so on... > > > > Splitting out kXalloc stuff to a separate header won't help, I > > think, > > because of the above. > > Splitting out struct work_struct is just a tip of an iceberg. > > Splitting out memcg stuff won't help in the similar way. > > > > I'm all ears for (a better) solution. > > I think ultimately we'd want to untangle this, but allocating bitmaps > is > not in any hot paths so having them as non-inlined functions should > not > hurt us that much for time being. Perhaps I can elaborate a bit in a commit message. Thanks for review! -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
