From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:35:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [PATCH] unified spinlock Message-Id: <41EFCFDC.4060509@osdl.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:56:18PM +0530, Amit Gud wrote: > >>Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible. > > > Why would you want to replace a statically initialised spinlock with > one that's initialised at runtime? I wondered that also, since I prefer the compile-time inits myself. so I looked at the KJ TODO list and it says: From: Jonathan Corbet Unified spinlock initialization: convert all explicit lock initializations to spin_lock_init() or rwlock_init(). (Besides consistency this also helps automatic lock validators and debugging code.) http://lwn.net/Articles/109505/ http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@419a6f292wHnthuDzw7VfgECNLmvLg?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-8w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't find the consistency part compelling at all. If the change helps some static source analyzers, however, that would be a good thing, but not a strong one (IMO). -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors