[PATCH v3 03/11] devm-helpers: introduce devm_mutex_init

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:00 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 14/12/2023 à 13:48, George Stark a écrit :
> > [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark at salutedevices.com.
> > 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