On Wed 04-12-24 12:11:02, Christian Brauner wrote: > > motivation of introducing __f_unlock_pos() in the first place? It has one > > May I venture a guess: > > CALL ../scripts/checksyscalls.sh > INSTALL libsubcmd_headers > INSTALL libsubcmd_headers > CC fs/read_write.o > In file included from ../fs/read_write.c:12: > ../include/linux/file.h:78:27: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct file' > 78 | mutex_unlock(&fd_file(f)->f_pos_lock); > | ~~~~~~~~~~^ > > If you don't include linux/fs.h before linux/file.h you'd get compilation > errors and we don't want to include linux/fs.h in linux/file.h. Ah, subtle ;) > I wouldn't add another wrapper for lock though. Just put a comment on top of > __f_unlock_pos(). Yes, I guess comment is better in that case. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
