linux-kernel - Re: [KJ]remove SPIN_LOCK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/