From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@horizon.com Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:33:46 +0000 Subject: Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2 Message-Id: <20060331013346.913.qmail@science.horizon.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: clameter@sgi.com Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The following patchset implements the ability to specify a > synchronization mode for bit operations. > > I.e. instead of set_bit(x,y) we can do set_bit(x,y, mode). > > The following modes are supported: Yuck. 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()). I sincerely hope neither of those apply in this case. 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.