From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49511 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032486AbXEHW3k (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 18:29:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 00:29:27 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] lock bitops Message-ID: <20070508222926.GA20174@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070508113709.GA19294@wotan.suse.de> <20070508150631.GC10562@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070508150631.GC10562@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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()? bit_spin_trylock / bit_spin_unlock be OK? ;)