Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:34:50 -0700 (MST) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] spinlock_t & rwlock_t break_lock member initialization (patch seeking comments included) |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |