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);
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),
tglx
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
