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 functions: >> >> static spinlock_t foobar = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > >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 difference.) Jan -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
