(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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
