[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080425163736.GC10397@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:37:36 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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()
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:10:11PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
Do you have a new revision of this patch series that I can apply to my
trees?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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