Re: [patch 1/1] unified spinlock initialization arch/um/drivers/port_kern.c

[linux-os]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  I'm not convinced about the practicality of converting all static
> >  initialisations to code-based initialisations though
>
> This is the first one I recall seeing.  All the other conversions were replacing
>
> 	static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> with
> 	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
>
> and replacing
>
> 	{
> 		lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> 	}
>
> with
>
> 	{
> 		spin_lock_init(lock);
> 	}

We need to retain the spin_lock_init(&lock) because not all spin-locks
are allocated at compile-time. They might be allocated from kmalloc()
on startup, probably in a structure, along with other so-called
global data.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
 Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
                 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/