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

[Nick Piggin]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:24:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:49:09 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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)

Well I use DEFINE_BRLOCK for the .c file definitions which include
non-static non-inline functions, so you can't put it in a .h. So
AFAIKS you need both. Athough DECLARE_BRLOCK is not strictly for
declarations because of those static inline functions so I agree the
name is not ideal.

--
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/