> > 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?
Wow, I didn't realize there was code doing that. I guess for that
handful of cases, you indeed would probably want to convert them to
raw_spinlock_t and use __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. But in the vast
majority of cases, DEFINE_SPINLOCK() is the right think to do.
- R.
-
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]
