Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

Alan Cox writes:
 > Actually a PS to this while I think about it. spin_locks and mutex type
 > locks could both do with a macro for
 > 
 > 	call_locked(&lock, foo(a,b,c,d))

reiser4 code was publicly humiliated for such macros, but indeed they
are useful. The only problem is that one needs two macros: one for foo()
returning void and one for all other cases.

 > 
 > to cut down on all the error path forgot to release a lock type errors.
 > 

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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC][Patch 1/5] nanosecond timestamps and diffs
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 6/6] per-mount noatime and nodiratime
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• 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]