On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance?
> > > Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than
> > > code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory
> > > is written to anyway.
> >
> > Agreed, theoretically, but this was done for multiple reasons globally,
> > for instance as a preparation to Ingo Molnar's preemption patches. There
> > was mention of this on lwn.net about this:
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/108719/
>
> Those patches did only the conversion of
>
> static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> to
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(lock);
> spin_lock_init(lock);
First: I didn't write the patch, only forwarded it, so I just guessed why it
was done.
The latter is spin_lock_init(&lock); (since someone got confused about this).
However, this is a .lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED ->
spin_lock_init(&struct.lock),
so I don't understand what changes... the structure is initialized inside a
function, so there's no change.
> If you want to do static initialization inside of structures, then you
> have to define a seperate MACRO similar to the static initialization of
> list_head's inside of structures:
> static struct sysfs_dirent sysfs_root = {
> .s_sibling = LIST_HEAD_INIT(sysfs_root.s_sibling),
I don't see the need here... and the initialization is not in static code; it
changes this code snippet:
void *port_data(int port_num)
{
//...
*port = ((struct port_list)
{ .list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(port->list),
.has_connection = 0,
.sem = __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(port->sem,
0),
.lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED,
.port = port_num,
.fd = fd,
.pending = LIST_HEAD_INIT(port->pending),
.connections =
LIST_HEAD_INIT(port->connections) });
So you are all doing some confusion (in fact I guess Andrew realized this when
he merged this anyway).
--
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
-
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/
