Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:40:22 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2 |
| |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, linux@horizon.com wrote:
> The only conceivable reason for passing the mode as a separate parameter is > - To change the mode dynamically at run time. > - To share common code when the sequence is long and mostly shared > between the various modes (as in open(2) or ll_rw_block()).
There is usually quite complex code involved although the code generated is minimal.
> On the downside, it's more typing and uglier than a series of > > frob_bit_nonatomic() > (probably temporarily or permanently aliased to frob_bit()) > frob_bit_atomic() > frob_bit_acquire() > frob_bit_release() > frob_bit_barrier() > > functions, and those also prevent you from doing something silly like > frob_bit(x, y, O_DIRECT). Also, the MODE_ prefix might be wanted by > something else.
Ok. We could change the MODE_ prefix but the problem with not passing this as a parameter that there are numerous functions derived from bit ops that are then also needed in lots of different flavors. Passing a parameter cuts down the number of variations dramatically.
- 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/
| |