On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:00 PM Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ] > > 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 I believe the main misunderstanding here is where to put the implementation. AFAIU Christophe wants the implementation to be in the very same _C_-file where mutex_destroy() is defined. mutex.h in this case indeed requires the only forward declaration and hence doesn't need to include device.h. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
