[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101743520.24794@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
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 Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > >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.)
>
> Don't worry about the __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED stuff, that's
> obviously not for generic code to use. The right answer (as I said
> before) is to use DEFINE_SPINLOCK().
that works fine if you're defining a single spinlock, but what do you
do in cases like this:
arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c: [0 ... (ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE-1)] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
that is, when you're assigning an array of them? you still need some
kind of generic, unnamed spinlock in those circumstances, no?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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