Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] unified spinlock initialization arch/um/drivers/port_kern.c | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:12:00 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > > Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance? > > Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than > > code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory > > is written to anyway. > Agreed, theoretically, but this was done for multiple reasons globally, for > instance as a preparation to Ingo Molnar's preemption patches. There was > mention of this on lwn.net about this: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/108719/
Those patches did only the conversion of
static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; to static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock); spin_lock_init(lock);
If you want to do static initialization inside of structures, then you have to define a seperate MACRO similar to the static initialization of list_head's inside of structures:
static struct sysfs_dirent sysfs_root = { .s_sibling = LIST_HEAD_INIT(sysfs_root.s_sibling),
tglx
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |