Re: [KJ]remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/