From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] kernel: add bl_list
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:32:06 -0400
Message-ID: <20101016163206.GE20086@infradead.org>
References: <1287216853-17634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1287216853-17634-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101016095150.GA7142@amd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101016095150.GA7142@amd>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:51:50PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I don't know why Christoph asked for these; he's usually against
> obfuscating wrapper functions.
> 
> bit_spin_lock is fine in callers so please leave it at that.
> Other users may not want a spinlock, or might want to use
> bit_spin_is_locked, bit_spin_trylock etc.

See the comments on the previous posting of this.  It provides a useful
abtraction.  And yes, eventually we might need more wrappers, but
we can add them as needed.