Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jul 2007 14:25:05 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep |
| |
* Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > > +#define create_workqueue(name) \ > > > +({ \ > > > + static struct lock_class_key __key; \ > > > + struct workqueue_struct *__wq; \ > > > + \ > > > + __wq = __create_workqueue((name), 0, 0, &__key); \ > > > + __wq; \ > > > +}) > > > > Why do we need __wq ? > > No particular reason I think, I copied some other code doing it that > way.
yep, should be fine doing this:
#define create_workqueue(name) \ ({ \ static struct lock_class_key __key; \ \ __create_workqueue((name), 0, 0, &__key); \ })
(and the return value of __create_workqueue() will be the 'return value' of the macro as well.)
> > + extern struct workqueue_struct *__create_workqueue_key(..., key); > > + #define __create_workqueue(...) \ > > + static struct lock_class_key __key; \ > > + __create_workqueue_key(..., key); \ > > > > but this is a matter of taste.
the above macro should at minimum be encapsulated with do { ... } while (0) so that __create_workqueue() is a single C statement.
Ingo - 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/
| |