Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964956AbVL2LGt (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:06:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932592AbVL2LGt (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:06:49 -0500 Received: from vanessarodrigues.com ([192.139.46.150]:35246 "EHLO jaguar.mkp.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932591AbVL2LGt (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:06:49 -0500 To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] updates XFS mutex patch References: <1135854222.2935.15.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> From: Jes Sorensen Date: 29 Dec 2005 06:06:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1135854222.2935.15.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 898 Lines: 17 >>>>> "Arjan" == Arjan van de Ven writes: Arjan> 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) Arjan> why not just change all mutex_init users to only pass lock? Arjan> (same for the others) eg why add another abstraction instead of Arjan> fixing the caller? I have no objections to this, however I am not sure if the XFS guys try to maintain some level of source compatibility. Just trying to play nicely, but I agree that would be cleaner. Cheers, Jes - 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/