From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G90SF-0006WA-1f for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:15:11 -0700 Received: from [198.99.130.12] (helo=saraswathi.solana.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1G90SA-0002iF-IO for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:15:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:14:47 -0400 From: Jeff Dike Message-ID: <20060804141447.GA3837@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200607070033.k670XhQR008707@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: alessandro salvatori Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:00:43PM +0000, alessandro salvatori wrote: > the new lock irq_lock is still static, but we now have preprocessor > macros to be included from a header file instead of non-static functions in > the same module as the static irq_lock. I don't understand. The changes in this patch are - remove two functions and their declarations replace calls to those functions with spin_lock_irq_save and spin_unlock_irqsave move the spinlock declaration above the spin_(un)lock_irq_save calls Which of these are you talking about? Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161213AbWHDOPS (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:15:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932479AbWHDOPS (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:15:18 -0400 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]:2717 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932359AbWHDOPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:15:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:14:47 -0400 From: Jeff Dike To: alessandro salvatori Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 10/19] UML - Remove spinlock wrapper functions Message-ID: <20060804141447.GA3837@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200607070033.k670XhQR008707@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <517e86fb0608040600n52f36b8ci60f4e219f8cd4b5a@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:00:43PM +0000, alessandro salvatori wrote: > the new lock irq_lock is still static, but we now have preprocessor > macros to be included from a header file instead of non-static functions in > the same module as the static irq_lock. I don't understand. The changes in this patch are - remove two functions and their declarations replace calls to those functions with spin_lock_irq_save and spin_unlock_irqsave move the spinlock declaration above the spin_(un)lock_irq_save calls Which of these are you talking about? Jeff