Roland Dreier writes:
> Arjan> this is really ugly though; at minimum a DEFINE_STATIC_SPINLOCK()
> Arjan> would be needed to make this less ugly.
>
> huh? This is a totally standard kernel idiom -- just do
>
> grep -Er 'static (DECLARE|DEFINE)' .
>
> in a kernel tree to see how prevalent it is.
It may be widely used and still ugly. The general problem with
DEFINE_FOO() macros is that they obfuscate things: they do not _look_
like C variable declarations, and, in particular, type of variable is
not immediately obvious.
The only reasonable case where DEFINE_FOO(x) is really necessary is when
initializer uses address of x, but even in that case something like
spinlock_t guard = SPINLOCK_UNLOCKED(guard);
is much more readable than
DEFINE_SPIN_LOCK(guard);
The question is: does RT really have to force DEFINE_* as the only way
to define things?
>
> - R.
Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |