[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070410220804.GI26692@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:08:04 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, kernelnewbies@...linux.org,
kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [KJ] remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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?
That's a special case for architecture-only code. It's not to be used
by drivers.
-
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