[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480DE3B3.6050702@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:10:11 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, oliver@...kum.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, zaitcev@...hat.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] klist: implement KLIST_INIT() and DEFINE_KLIST()
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> These locks don't nest so being in the same class should be okay and I
>> was following what (at least some of) other __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED users
>> are doing. If putting these locks into separate classes is the RTTD, sure.
>
> Ah, they'll actually be in seprate classes all of the same name. So I
> think it is cleaner to cause them to have separate names too.
>
> see look_up_lock_class() in kernel/lockdep.c:
>
> /*
> * Static locks do not have their class-keys yet - for them the key
> * is the lock object itself:
> */
> if (unlikely(!lock->key))
> lock->key = (void *)lock;
Ah.. I'll put change it to name. Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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