Le 14/12/2023 à 13:48, George Stark a écrit : > [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. > Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > Hello Christophe > > On 12/14/23 13:06, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> >> > ... >> >> So you abandonned the idea of using mutex.h ? > > I'm not the one who make a choice here. The patch [1] you're talking > about was seen by everyone but it seems like no one had shown interest. > For me personally approach with #define mutex_destroy is not very usual > but if even slight mixing device with mutex.h is unacceptable what else > can we do? Avoiding the need to allocate devm slot for empty > mutex_destroy is more important. > Why would a forward declaration of struct device in mutex.h be unacceptable when it is done in so many headers ? $ git grep "struct device;" include/ | wc -l 164 > Should I make series #4 with the patch [1] to give it a last chance? Yes, lets give it a try > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/377e4437-7051-4d88-ae68-1460bcd692e1@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m3f6df30ffccaccb1df4669a327f349164f572931 > Christophe
