Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:03:17 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] klist: implement KLIST_INIT() and DEFINE_KLIST() |
| |
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:57 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> klist is missing static initializers and definition helper. Add them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> >> --- >> I can't tell who's in charge of this code, so I'm including last two >> people who made changes and Andrew :-) This will be used by later USB >> mode switch support, so I'm cc'ing USB people too. >> >> Thanks. >> >> include/linux/klist.h | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/klist.h b/include/linux/klist.h >> index 7407125..c6b697c 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/klist.h >> +++ b/include/linux/klist.h >> @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct klist { >> void (*put)(struct klist_node *); >> }; >> >> +#define KLIST_INIT(_name, _get, _put) \ >> + { .k_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(klist.k_lock), \ > > May I ask you make that: __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(_name.k_lock) > > Otherwise we'll end up with multiple classes that have the same name.
These locks don't nest so being in the same class should be okay and I was following what (at least some of) other __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED users are doing. If putting these locks into separate classes is the RTTD, sure.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |