> > 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/
