* David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:31:06 -0700 > > > My suggestion would be to see about again adding > > #include <linux/ratelimit.h> somehow > > back to kernel.h which commit 3fff4c42bd0a removed > > in 2009 because of the spinlock issues. > > > > Any suggestion on how best to fix it generically? > > I don't think we want spinlock_t's definition being sucked > into kernel.h's dependency food chain. Agreed. Also, i don't think it's unreasonable to require code that uses DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE() to #include ratelimit.h. That's what we require from DEFINE_MUTEX() and DEFINE_SPINLOCK() users and many other users as well. The only exception is printk_ratelimit() itself - that should not - and currently does not - require the inclusion of ratelimit.h. The *real* solution here would be to remove the spurious and .config dependent inclusion of ratelimit.h in include/linux/net.h. It's fine to provide the net_ratelimit() interface (it'sanalogous to printk_ratelimit()), but it's not fine to declare net_ratelimit_state in that header and include that header in half of all networking code, bringing in ratelimit.h implicitly. So no, i don't think your patch is the real solution. The problem was that the .config's you tested had CONFIG_SYSCTL=y, which brought in ratelimit.h into half of the networking code. That's unnecessary and problematic - the interface between net/core/sysctl_net_core.c and net/core/utils.c should be done via a dedicated header (not included by other code), or via explicit extern declared in the .c file (more dangerous, but used by pretty much all sysctl code in the kernel). Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
