On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:49:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, so that would be the following, work for everyone?
> >
> > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores
> > #1: FILE: Z95.c:1:
> > + DECLARE_MUTEX(&foo);
> >
> > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores
> > #3: FILE: Z95.c:3:
> > + init_MUTEX(&foo);
>
> yeah.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> also i guess init_MUTEX_LOCKED() should emit a "this should be a
> completion" warning.
Thats easy enough. Though your tone here implies its less definatly
wrong than the other use forms. Do we want gentle language here?
"consider using a completion"
> i guess non-DEFINE_SPINLOCK old-style spinlock definition:
>
> spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> should emit a 'use DEFINE_SPINLOCK' warning as well?
Those (SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED & RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED) we already pick up and
indicate are deprecated.
-apw
--
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/
