On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:50:01 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:10:28 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > +#define seqlock_init(x) \
> > > + do { \
> > > + (x)->sequence = 0; \
> > > + spin_lock_init(&(x)->lock); \
> > > + } while (0)
> >
> > This does not have to be a macro, does it?
>
> Maybe it could be an __always_inline inline function (it has to be
> inlined to get the callsite based lock class key right)
the compiler darn better inline it, else we'll have an out-of-line copy of
everything in everywhere.
> - but i'm not
> sure about the include file dependencies. Will probably work out fine as
> seqlock.h is supposed to be a late one in the order of inclusion - but i
> didnt want to make a blind bet.
seqlock.h already includes spinlock.h.
-
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/
