From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l8C8uq4p003409 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:56:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:29:41 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH SERIES] untangle spinlock macros Message-ID: <20070912082940.GA25373@infradead.org> References: <46E6221E.803@sandeen.net> <46E7460D.3000502@sgi.com> <46E749DD.8010200@sandeen.net> <46E78185.5040201@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46E78185.5040201@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: Eric Sandeen , Donald Douwsma , xfs-oss On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:04:53PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > These changes look good Eric. > > I'm in two minds about losing the spinlock_destroy() macros though. If > Linux > ever implements a spinlock teardown routine it would be nice to still have > all > the placeholders still there. Although I can't imagine it would do any more > than assert that the lock is not currently held. If someone else wants to > lose > the macros then I'm not going to argue. I'd say keep them for now. We don't need the spin.h header for them anyway, as single macro can simply move to xfs_linux.h