[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080226152057.GG20322@shadowen.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:20:57 +0000
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mmiotrace full patch, preview 1
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:49:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
>
> > Ok, so that would be the following, work for everyone?
> >
> > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores
> > #1: FILE: Z95.c:1:
> > + DECLARE_MUTEX(&foo);
> >
> > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores
> > #3: FILE: Z95.c:3:
> > + init_MUTEX(&foo);
>
> yeah.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> also i guess init_MUTEX_LOCKED() should emit a "this should be a
> completion" warning.
Thats easy enough. Though your tone here implies its less definatly
wrong than the other use forms. Do we want gentle language here?
"consider using a completion"
> i guess non-DEFINE_SPINLOCK old-style spinlock definition:
>
> spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> should emit a 'use DEFINE_SPINLOCK' warning as well?
Those (SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED & RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED) we already pick up and
indicate are deprecated.
-apw
--
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