Re: [PATCH v4 03/12] xen/spinlock: introduce new type for recursive spinlocks

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.12.23 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.12.2023 13:57, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead {
> > >        spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL);                                
> > >  \
> > >        static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l);   
> > >  \
> > >        _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l)
> > > +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l)                                                   \
> > > +    rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL);                                \
> > > +    static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l);    \
> > > +    _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l)
> > >    
> > > -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l)                                             \
> > > +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype)                                 \
> > If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in
> > MISRA. So can this be renamed to:
> >
> > spin_lock_init_prof__()?
> Is the new parameter needed at all? Can't we use typeof((s)->l) in place of
> passing the type explicitly?
IMO spin_lock_init_prof() should be usable for spinlock_t only, and
rspin_lock_init_prof() for rspinlock_t only. Using typeof() would make
either of them usable for both types.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature