* Andrew Morton <[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.
the compiler will do the uninlining happily if it sees a size advantage
(when a single .c module calls the function several times), and creates
a private per-object-file uninlined function. So an __always_inline
would definitely be needed.
> > - 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.
yes ... i just preserved the status quo.
Ingo
-
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/
