Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:49:31 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RT: epca_lock to DEFINE_SPINLOCK |
| |
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> > The only reasonable case where DEFINE_FOO(x) is really necessary is when > initializer uses address of x, but even in that case something like > > spinlock_t guard = SPINLOCK_UNLOCKED(guard); > > is much more readable than > > DEFINE_SPIN_LOCK(guard); >
Except that the former is also error prone. I just found a bug in my code (I customize Ingo's RT kernel) where I had a cut and paste error:
spinlock_t a = SPINLOCK_UNLOCKED(a); spinlock_t b = SPINLOCK_UNLOCKED(a);
This took me two days to find since the problems occurred elsewhere.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |