On 2017-09-08 at 17:29:11 +0200, Stafford Horne <shorne@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> > > 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?
