Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964955AbVL2LDv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:03:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932591AbVL2LDv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:03:51 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:39086 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932585AbVL2LDu (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:03:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] updates XFS mutex patch From: Arjan van de Ven To: Jes Sorensen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:03:42 +0100 Message-Id: <1135854222.2935.15.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 612 Lines: 15 On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 05:59 -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: > + > +#define xfs_mutex_init(lock, type, name) mutex_init(lock) > +#define xfs_mutex_lock(lock, type) mutex_lock(lock) > +#define mutex_destroy(lock) do{}while(0) why not just change all mutex_init users to only pass lock? (same for the others) eg why add another abstraction instead of fixing the caller? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/