patch-2.4.8 linux/include/asm-i386/locks.h

• Lines: 63
• Date: Thu Jul 26 13:40:32 2001
• Orig file: v2.4.7/linux/include/asm-i386/locks.h
• Orig date: Wed Jun 2 11:29:13 1999

diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.4.7/linux/include/asm-i386/locks.h linux/include/asm-i386/locks.h
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
  *	to borrow for other processors if it was just assembler.
  */
 
-extern __inline__ void prim_spin_lock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ void prim_spin_lock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	int processor=smp_processor_id();
 	
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
  *	Release a spin lock
  */
  
-extern __inline__ int prim_spin_unlock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ int prim_spin_unlock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	/* This is safe. The decrement is still guarded by the lock. A multilock would
 	   not be safe this way */
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
  *	Non blocking lock grab
  */
  
-extern __inline__ int prim_spin_lock_nb(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ int prim_spin_lock_nb(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	if(lock_set_bit(0,&sp->lock))
 		return 0;		/* Locked already */
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
  *	These wrap the locking primitives up for usage
  */
  
-extern __inline__ void spinlock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ void spinlock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	if(sp->priority<current->lock_order)
 		panic("lock order violation: %s (%d)\n", sp->name, current->lock_order);
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
 	}
 }
 
-extern __inline__ void spinunlock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ void spinunlock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	int pri;
 	if(current->lock_order!=sp->priority)
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@
 	}	
 }
 
-extern __inline__ void spintestlock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ void spintestlock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	/*
 	 *	We do no sanity checks, it's legal to optimistically
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
 	prim_spin_lock_nb(sp);
 }
 
-extern __inline__ void spintestunlock(struct spinlock *sp)
+static __inline__ void spintestunlock(struct spinlock *sp)
 {
 	/*
 	 *	A testlock doesn't update the lock chain so we