Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:44:10 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: #include <sys/lock.h> and <sys/mutex.h> Message-ID: <31614.1049186650@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:37:35 BST." <200304010837.h318bZ4j060918@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200304010837.h318bZ4j060918@grimreaper.grondar.org>, Mark Murray wr ites: >Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >> My present predicament is that I will probably put a mutex in the >> bio queue which is defined in <sys/bio.h>, and so far, I've found >> 20 .c files where I need to add <sys/lock.h> and <sys/mutex.h> and >> I am not yet at a point where LINT compiles. >> >> Do we have a plan for these in the future ? I can see three obvious >> options: >> >> A) define them leaf #includes, and #include them from the majority of >> our .c files. >> >> B) Include them nested from other .h files which need them, in my >> case <sys/bio.h> >> >> C) Include them nested from a central .h file like <sys/kernel.h> > >Do you need the whole sys/lock.h and sys/mutex.h? Can you get by with >#including sys/_lock.h and/or sys/_mutex.h in sys/bio.h? And possibly >following up by adding the non-underscore variants in the hopefully >few places where they are actually needed. I can probably get away with the _* versions, but I'd prefer to know what our plans for this sort of situation actually is... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?31614.1049186650>