Andrew Morton wrote:
+ for (i = 0; i < IPMI_NUM_STATS; i++) + atomic_set(&intf->stats[i], 0);And this is why it would be very hard for any architecture to ever implement atomic_t as struct atomic_t { int counter; spinlock_t lock; }; The interface assumes that atomic_set() fully initialises the atomic_t, and that atomic_set() can be used agaisnt both an uninitialised atomic_t and against an already-initialised atomic_t. IOW, we don't have atomic_init(). So would our hypothetical future architcture's atomic_set() do spin_lock(), or would it do spin_lock_init()? Either one is wrong in many atomic_set callsites. Oh well.
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I did this. Do we start working on an atomic_init()? It would be easy enough to set it to atomic_set() for current architectures. -corey -- 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/
