Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] klist: implement KLIST_INIT() and DEFINE_KLIST() | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:06:31 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 22:03 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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.
Ah, they'll actually be in seprate classes all of the same name. So I think it is cleaner to cause them to have separate names too.
see look_up_lock_class() in kernel/lockdep.c:
/* * Static locks do not have their class-keys yet - for them the key * is the lock object itself: */ if (unlikely(!lock->key)) lock->key = (void *)lock;
| |