On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > >but that's where you would use the more explicit
> > >__RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, no? AFAIK, you really can remove the macro
> > >SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED in its entirety.
> >
> > I don't remember LDD speaking about __RAW_*. (And other than not
> > having looked into the code to date, I don't know the difference.)
>
> Don't worry about the __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED stuff, that's
> obviously not for generic code to use. The right answer (as I said
> before) is to use DEFINE_SPINLOCK().
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?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
