[PATCH REPOST] rbtree: include rcu.h because we use it

[PATCH REPOST] rbtree: include rcu.h because we use it

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

Since commit c1adf20052d8 ("Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()")
rbtree_augmented.h uses RCU related data structures but does not include
them. It works as long as gets somehow included before that and fails
otherwise.

Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h |    1 +
 include/linux/rbtree_latch.h     |    1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

--- a/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h
+++ b/include/linux/rbtree_augmented.h
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/compiler.h>
 #include <linux/rbtree.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
 
 /*
  * Please note - only struct rb_augment_callbacks and the prototypes for
--- a/include/linux/rbtree_latch.h
+++ b/include/linux/rbtree_latch.h
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/rbtree.h>
 #include <linux/seqlock.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
 
 struct latch_tree_node {
 	struct rb_node node[2];

Re: [PATCH REPOST] rbtree: include rcu.h because we use it

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri,  4 May 2018 12:31:59 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> Since commit c1adf20052d8 ("Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()")
> rbtree_augmented.h uses RCU related data structures but does not include
> them. It works as long as gets somehow included before that and fails
> otherwise.

c1adf20052d8 was two years ago.  Are there any actual real build errors
arising from this?  If so, backporting the patch might be needed?

Re: [PATCH REPOST] rbtree: include rcu.h because we use it

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2018-05-08 16:04:37 [-0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri,  4 May 2018 12:31:59 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > Since commit c1adf20052d8 ("Introduce rb_replace_node_rcu()")
> > rbtree_augmented.h uses RCU related data structures but does not include
> > them. It works as long as gets somehow included before that and fails
> > otherwise.
> 
> c1adf20052d8 was two years ago.  Are there any actual real build errors
> arising from this?  If so, backporting the patch might be needed?
I've seen them only in -RT. No backporting needed.

Sebastian