* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_HRTIMER_BASES; i++, base++)
> > - spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
> > + spin_lock_init_static(&base->lock);
> > }
> >
>
> Perhaps the validator core's implementation of spin_lock_init() could
> look at the address and work out if it's within the static storage
> sections.
yeah, but there are two cases: places where we want to 'unify' array
locks into a single type, and places where we want to treat them
separately. The case where we 'unify' is the more common one: locks
embedded into hash-tables for example. So i went for annotating the ones
that are rarer. There are 2 right now: scheduler, hrtimers, with the
hrtimers one going away in the high-res-timers implementation. (we
unified the hrtimers locks into a per-CPU lock) (there's also a kgdb
annotation for -mm)
perhaps the naming should be clearer? I had it named
spin_lock_init_standalone() originally, then cleaned it up to be
spin_lock_init_static(). Maybe the original name is better?
Ingo
-
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]
