[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0704102327460.32056@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:28:11 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
cc: Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org, kernelnewbies@...linux.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [KJ]remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
On Apr 10 2007 17:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Apr 10 2007 23:46, Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
>>
>> >"use spin_lock_init instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED"
>>
>> Fact is, we cannot remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. It's needed for
>> variables outside functions:
>>
>> static spinlock_t foobar = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
>but that's where you would use the more explicit
>__RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, no? AFAIK, you really can remove the macro
>SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED in its entirety.
I don't remember LDD speaking about __RAW_*. (And other than not
having looked into the code to date, I don't know the difference.)
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists