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