Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:20:57 +0000 | From | Andy Whitcroft <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] mmiotrace full patch, preview 1 |
| |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:49:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > > > Ok, so that would be the following, work for everyone? > > > > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores > > #1: FILE: Z95.c:1: > > + DECLARE_MUTEX(&foo); > > > > WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores > > #3: FILE: Z95.c:3: > > + init_MUTEX(&foo); > > yeah. > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > also i guess init_MUTEX_LOCKED() should emit a "this should be a > completion" warning.
Thats easy enough. Though your tone here implies its less definatly wrong than the other use forms. Do we want gentle language here?
"consider using a completion"
> i guess non-DEFINE_SPINLOCK old-style spinlock definition: > > spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > should emit a 'use DEFINE_SPINLOCK' warning as well?
Those (SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED & RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED) we already pick up and indicate are deprecated.
-apw
| |