linux-phytec-ti

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.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>