locking/qrwlock: Use 'struct qrwlock' instead of 'struct __qrwlock'
There's no good reason to keep the internal structure of struct qrwlock hidden from qrwlock.h, particularly as it's actually needed for unlock and ends up being abstracted independently behind the __qrwlock_write_byte() function. Stop pretending we can hide this stuff, and move the __qrwlock definition into qrwlock, removing the __qrwlock_write_byte() nastiness and using the same struct definition everywhere instead. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Cc: Jeremy.Linton@arm.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1507810851-306-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment