On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:25:26PM +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.
Ok, I just drop this patch. I wasn't aware this could cause problems,
since I don't use tags.
Thanks!
--
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
