Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization(patch seeking comments included)

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> I've now been running kernels (both PREEMPT, SMP, both and without both) 
> with the patch below applied for a few days and I see no ill effects. I'm 
> still interrested in comments about wether or not something like this 
> makes sense and is acceptable ?

The concept seems fine to me, although i think you should be using named 
initialisers instead.

Thanks Jesper,

	Zwane

-
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/