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

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:49:09 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:25:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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>
> 
> Well yes, but being a static inline, then I don't know of a better 
> way. Probably just better not to pretend we are expanding a simple
> declaration here, and name it something differently? (BRLOCK_HEADER(blah))?

DEFINE_BRLOCK(blah)
--
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/