[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.058 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site