Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> I've now been running kernels (both PREEMPT, SMP, both and without both) 
> with the patch below applied for a few days and I see no ill effects. I'm 
> still interrested in comments about wether or not something like this 
> makes sense and is acceptable ?

The concept seems fine to me, although i think you should be using named 
initialisers instead.

Thanks Jesper,

	Zwane

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included)
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included)
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] add a clear_pages function to clear pages of higher order
• Next by Date: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included)
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]