make the blkcg and blkcg structures private

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 06:23:18AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:44:43AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > The patches look all good to me and I'm not against making things more
> > private but can you elaborate on the rationale a bit more? By and large, we
> > have never been shy about putting things in the headers if there's *any*
> > (perceived) gain to be made from doing so, or even just as a way to pick the
> > locations for different things - type defs go on header and so on. Most of
> > the inlines and [un]likely's that we have are rather silly with modern
> > compilers with global optimizations, so it does make sense to get tidier,
> > but if that's the rationale, mentioning that in the commit message, even
> > briefly, would be great - ie. it should explain the benefits of adding these
> > few accessors to keep the definition private.
> 
> Mostly to help me understand the code :)  between all the moving to
> and from the css struture it is a bit of a mess, and limiting the scope
> that deals with the structures greatly helps with that.

Hahaha, yeah, fair enough. I don't see a reason to not apply the patchset
given that the code is better organized and easier to follow afterewards.
For the series,

 Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj at kernel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun