Re: [patch 4/6] brlock: introduce special brlocks

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:40:30 +1100 npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote:

> +#define DECLARE_BRLOCK(name)						\

This:

> + DECLARE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, name##_lock);				\
> + static inline void name##_lock_init(void) {				\
> +	int i;								\
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {					\
> +		spinlock_t *lock;					\
> +		lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i);			\
> +		spin_lock_init(lock);					\
> +	}								\
> + }									\
> + static inline void name##_rlock(void) {				\
> +	spinlock_t *lock;						\
> +	lock = &get_cpu_var(name##_lock);				\
> +	spin_lock(lock);						\
> + }									\

generates a definition, not a declaration.  Hence DEFINE_BRLOCK.

</petpeeve #29>
--
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/