Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:14:58 -0500 (EST) | From | "Robert P. J. Day" <> | Subject | how exactly is the macro SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED going to be removed? |
| |
(the following applies equally well to RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED.)
according to Documentation/spinlocks.txt:
====================================== Macros SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED and RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED are deprecated and will be removed soon. So for any new code dynamic initialization should be used:
spinlock_t xxx_lock; rwlock_t xxx_rw_lock;
static int __init xxx_init(void) { spin_lock_init(&xxx_lock); rwlock_init(&xxx_rw_lock); ... }
module_init(xxx_init); ... ======================================
fair enough, i can see how *some* of that replacement is going to be done. new spinlocks can be created based on the macro:
#define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(x) spinlock_t x = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(x)
so i'm assuming that the underlying macro __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED is sticking around.
also, since defining a spinlock that way requires a lock name, things like this:
... .lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, ...
will have to be replaced with the form:
... .death_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(tcp_death_row.death_lock) ...
is that correct so far? but i'm not sure what's going to happen with stuff like this:
spinlock_t cris_atomic_locks[] = { [0 ... LOCK_COUNT - 1] = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED};
what's the deal with *that*? or am i misunderstanding this completely?
rday - 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/
| |