linuxkpi: spinlock: Simplify code

[manu]

Summary

Just use a typedef for spinlock_t, no need to create a useless
structure.

Sponsored by: Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG

[manu]

The main reason for this change is that now struct mtx and spinlock_t are 100% interchangeable in code which is a first step to share structures between linuxkpi driver and native ones.

[emaste]

I believe this will be ABI-compatible so there should be no trouble upgrading across the commit

[bz]

In D45205#1031216, @manu wrote:

The main reason for this change is that now struct mtx and spinlock_t are 100% interchangeable in code which is a first step to share structures between linuxkpi driver and native ones.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Do you have an example? Oh, not the struct mtx you mean but structures embedding struct mtx?

[manu]

In D45205#1031322, @bz wrote:

In D45205#1031216, @manu wrote:

The main reason for this change is that now struct mtx and spinlock_t are 100% interchangeable in code which is a first step to share structures between linuxkpi driver and native ones.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Do you have an example? Oh, not the struct mtx you mean but structures embedding struct mtx?

Yes, I'm working on dma-buf and I want most of the code to be usable for native driver and that structures are shareable with linuxkpi drivers too so the base structure needs to be the same, the fact that I can now spin_lock(blah) if blah is struct mtx or spinlock_t helps.