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_UNLOCKED
> >
> > that is, when you're assigning an array of them? you still need
> > some kind of generic, unnamed spinlock in those circumstances, no?
>
> That's a special case for architecture-only code. It's not to be
> used by drivers.
be that as it may, it still means you need to take it into account
whenever someone says they want to entirely remove the
SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED macro from the source tree, as suggested in
Documentation/spinlocks.txt.
if you do that removal, you can always replace SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED with
its current definition of __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(old_style_spin_init),
or what have you. but you would obviously have to replace it with
*something* that represents an unnamed spinlock if SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
goes away.
rday
p.s. just FYI:
$ grep -r "\.\.\..*SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED" *
arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c: [0 ... (ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE-1)] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/smp.c:spinlock_t cris_atomic_locks[] = { [0 ... LOCK_COUNT - 1] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED};
arch/parisc/lib/bitops.c: [0 ... (ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE-1)] = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
arch/mips/kernel/gdb-stub.c: [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/htab.c: { [0 ... 63] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED};
so, as matthew says, it's clearly not for drivers.
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
