![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-29 06:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||