| To: | Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH SERIES] untangle spinlock macros |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:29:41 +0100 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Donald Douwsma <donaldd@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <46E78185.5040201@sgi.com> |
| References: | <46E6221E.803@sandeen.net> <46E7460D.3000502@sgi.com> <46E749DD.8010200@sandeen.net> <46E78185.5040201@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
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 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH SERIES] untangle spinlock macros, Lachlan McIlroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | state of the cvs tree, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH SERIES] untangle spinlock macros, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH SERIES] untangle spinlock macros, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |