On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 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_
On 4/11/07, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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_UN
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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 o
> > 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/spa
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
> > hav
> >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 dif
On Apr 10 2007 17:25, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Apr 10 2007 23:46, Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
>>
>> >"use spin_lock_init instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED"
>>
>> Fact is, we cannot remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. It's needed for
>> variables outside functio
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Apr 10 2007 23:46, Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
>
> >"use spin_lock_init instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED"
>
> Fact is, we cannot remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. It's needed for
> variables outside functions:
>
> static spinlock_t foobar = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCK
> Fact is, we cannot remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. It's needed for
> variables outside functions:
>
> static spinlock_t foobar = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
DEFINE_SPINLOCK() is provided to define variables that way.
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Apr 10 2007 23:46, Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
>"use spin_lock_init instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED"
Fact is, we cannot remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED. It's needed for
variables outside functions:
static spinlock_t foobar = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>let me know if this is fine ..
not for me to com
"use spin_lock_init instead of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED"
i'm a bit confused with SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED removal
I just did the below mentioned change
but then came to know that spin_lock_init is defined as
# define spin_lock_init(lock) \
do { *(lock) = SPIN_LOCK
11 matches
Mail list logo
