On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not convinced about the practicality of converting all static
initialisations to code-based initialisations though
This is the first one I recall seeing. All the other conversions were
replacing
static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
with
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
and replacing
{
lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
}
with
{
spin_lock_init(lock);
}
We need to retain the spin_lock_init(&lock) because not all spin-locks
are allocated at compile-time. They might be allocated from kmalloc()
on startup, probably in a structure, along with other so-called
global data.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
-
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/
