From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] brlock: introduce special brlocks
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:24:00 -0700
Message-ID: <20091019052400.e7f304aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20091015044026.319860788@suse.de>
	<20091015050048.777261867@suse.de>
	<20091018222512.683973f7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20091019094909.GC27856@wotan.suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:36854 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754080AbZJSM00 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:26:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20091019094909.GC27856@wotan.suse.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:49:09 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:25:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:40:30 +1100 npiggin@suse.de wrote:
> > 
> > > +#define DECLARE_BRLOCK(name)						\
> > 
> > This:
> > 
> > > + DECLARE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, name##_lock);				\
> > > + static inline void name##_lock_init(void) {				\
> > > +	int i;								\
> > > +	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {					\
> > > +		spinlock_t *lock;					\
> > > +		lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i);			\
> > > +		spin_lock_init(lock);					\
> > > +	}								\
> > > + }									\
> > > + static inline void name##_rlock(void) {				\
> > > +	spinlock_t *lock;						\
> > > +	lock = &get_cpu_var(name##_lock);				\
> > > +	spin_lock(lock);						\
> > > + }									\
> > 
> > generates a definition, not a declaration.  Hence DEFINE_BRLOCK.
> > 
> > </petpeeve #29>
> 
> Well yes, but being a static inline, then I don't know of a better 
> way. Probably just better not to pretend we are expanding a simple
> declaration here, and name it something differently? (BRLOCK_HEADER(blah))?

DEFINE_BRLOCK(blah)