bit_spinlock: Include <asm/processor.h>

  In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
(see [1])

It broke on arc.

Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/

Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
---
Not sure who to send this to.
get_maintainer.pl is of no help, and the file is untouched from a too long
time.

Greg? Dan? Any pointer?
---
 include/linux/bit_spinlock.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
  

On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 08:04:44PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
> appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
> was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
> (see [1])
> 
> It broke on arc.
> 
> Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
> This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> Not sure who to send this to.
> get_maintainer.pl is of no help, and the file is untouched from a too long
> time.
> 
> Greg? Dan? Any pointer?

Andrew Morton is the maintainer of last resort.  Plus spinlocks seem
like something he would be interested in.  Otherwise Ingo, Peter Z and
the x86 team.

regards,
dan carpenter
  

On Sun,  8 Jan 2023 20:04:44 +0100 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
> appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
> was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
> (see [1])
> 
> It broke on arc.
> 
> Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
> This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>  #ifndef __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>  #define __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>  
> +#include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/preempt.h>
>  #include <linux/atomic.h>

linux/processor.h would be preferable, rather than diving straight into asm/?
  

On 1/8/23 11:04, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
> appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
> was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
> (see [1])
>
> It broke on arc.

It its just ARC that broke, maybe we can do something there ?

> Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
> This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> ---
> Not sure who to send this to.
> get_maintainer.pl is of no help, and the file is untouched from a too long
> time.
>
> Greg? Dan? Any pointer?
> ---
>   include/linux/bit_spinlock.h | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> index bbc4730a6505..d0fd2a7afca2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>   #ifndef __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>   #define __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>   
> +#include <asm/processor.h>
>   #include <linux/kernel.h>
>   #include <linux/preempt.h>
>   #include <linux/atomic.h>
  

Le 10/01/2023 à 08:19, Vineet Gupta a écrit :
> 
> On 1/8/23 11:04, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
>> appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that 
>> <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
>> was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
>> (see [1])
>>
>> It broke on arc.
> 
> It its just ARC that broke, maybe we can do something there ?

Hi,

It is all what build-bots have spotted so far :)

I don't think that "fixing" it in ARC is the right approach, unless I 
missed something.

<linux/bit_spinlock.h> does use cpu_relax(), so it should include what 
is need for that, and not rely on other black magic.

CJ

> 
>> Include <asm/processor.h> in <linux/bit_spinlock.h> to fix the issue.
>> This will help remove some un-needed includes from <include/dcache.h>.
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301082130.LXMj5qkD-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
>> ---
>> Not sure who to send this to.
>> get_maintainer.pl is of no help, and the file is untouched from a too 
>> long
>> time.
>>
>> Greg? Dan? Any pointer?
>> ---
>>   include/linux/bit_spinlock.h | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
>> index bbc4730a6505..d0fd2a7afca2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>   #ifndef __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>>   #define __LINUX_BIT_SPINLOCK_H
>> +#include <asm/processor.h>
>>   #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>   #include <linux/preempt.h>
>>   #include <linux/atomic.h>
> 
>
  

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 07:08:33PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 10/01/2023 à 08:19, Vineet Gupta a écrit :
> > 
> > On 1/8/23 11:04, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > In an attempt to simplify some includes in <include/dcache.h>, it
> > > appeared, when compiling fs/ecryptfs/dentry.c, that
> > > <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
> > > was relying on other includes to get the definition of cpu_relax().
> > > (see [1])
> > > 
> > > It broke on arc.
> > 
> > It its just ARC that broke, maybe we can do something there ?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It is all what build-bots have spotted so far :)
> 
> I don't think that "fixing" it in ARC is the right approach, unless I missed
> something.
> 
> <linux/bit_spinlock.h> does use cpu_relax(), so it should include what is
> need for that, and not rely on other black magic.

Umm...  That's not obvious - it only uses cpu_relax() in macros, so missing
include would not cause problems if all actual users of those macros happen
to pull the needed header by other means.

Said that, we have

1) defined directly in asm/processor.h, using nothing but the stuff provided by
compiler.h:
	alpha, arc, csky, loongarch, m68k, microblaze, nios2,
	openrisc, parisc, s390, sh, xtensa
2) same, using something in headers pulled by asm/processor.h itself:
	ia64 (needs asm/intrinsic.h)
	hexagon (needs asm/hexagon_vm.h)
	um (needs arch/um/include/linux/time-internal.h)
3) same, but defined in something pulled by asm/processor.h rather than
in asm/processor.h itself; asm/vdso/processor.h is the common location -
those are the cases when we share the same definition for kernel and
vdso builds
	sparc (asm/processor_32.h or asm/processor_64.h)
	arm (asm/vdso/processor.h)
	arm64 (asm/vdso/processor.h)
	powerpc (asm/vdso/processor.h)
	x86 (asm/vdso/processor.h)
	riscv (asm/vdso/processor.h; needs several headers included there -
jump_label.h, etc.)
	mips (asm/vdso/processor.h, needs asm/barrier.h, pulled from asm/processor.h
by way of linux/atomic.h -> asm/atomic.h -> asm/barrier.h)

So asm/processor.h is sufficient for working cpu_relax() and if some
arch-independent code wants cpu_relax() it should pull either
asm/processor.h or linux/processor.h