From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:58959 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966039AbXEHPGh (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 11:06:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 09:06:32 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [rfc] lock bitops Message-ID: <20070508150631.GC10562@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070508113709.GA19294@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070508113709.GA19294@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > -- > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock semantics. > Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock, > bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks. The names are a bit clumsy. How about naming them after the effect, rather than the implementation? It struck me that really these things are bit mutexes -- you can sleep while holding the lock. How about calling them bit_mutex_trylock() and bit_mutex_unlock()?