On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 15:25 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 11 August 2009, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > Since the bodies of the spinlock functions are in a header > > file most functions in spinlock.c look like this: > > > > int __lockfunc _spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock) > > { > > return __spin_trylock(lock); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(_spin_trylock); > > > > That's just a simple wrapper. Its the same for spin-, > > read- and write-lock. So add an extra macro and generate > > all versions automatically like it is already done for > > the preemption friendly locks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > > If you generate function definitions from macros, you break > ctags support for following the call chain, which is rather > bad when someone tries to understand what the code does. > > I would just leave out this patch, AFAICT there are no > dependencies between this and the following patches, > and the object code remains identical. > > Alternatively, you could perhaps change scripts/tags.sh so > that the tags file points to the macro location for > each _spin_* function. > > The other patches look good. Ah, good point, I wish someone would teach that ctags script about the paravirt crap, but I'm afraid paravirt is too inconsistent to begin with. /me itches again to send a patch removing it all-together ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html