On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:15:33PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

 > > 	#define spinlockmgr(lkp, flags, intrlk)         (0)
 > > 
 > > Using
 > > 
 > > 	(void)spinlockmgr(args, ...)
 > > 
 > > quells the warning, but I don't want to have to use the (void) prefix
 > > (and not for reasons that started another ... "discussion" recently).
 > > 
 > > Is there any other ways around this?
 > 
 > Remove the (0).

No ... because spinlockmgr() is not a "void" function -- it returns a
value.

 > Honestly this worries me, the point of a spinlock may be to protect
 > a reasource accessed at interrupt time, traditionally kernel spinlocks
 > either implicitly mask all interrupts, or take an interrupt mask
 > to block (possibly an empty mask if there's no driver interaction).

The NetBSD locking API needs some work -- those of us responsible for
fixing it are well aware of the problems...

Also note that "spinlockmgr" is for read/write spinlocks, not
simple mutexes.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>