2017-02-27 11:18+0100, David Hildenbrand: > Am 27.02.2017 um 11:02 schrieb David Hildenbrand: >> Am 24.02.2017 um 20:49 schrieb Radim Krčmář: >>> The leading underscores denote that the call is just a bitop wrapper. >> >> Actually, the leading underscore is misleading >> >> If we want to match the semantics of set/test/clear_bit, using a leading >> underscore might feel like using the non-atomic variants like >> __clear_bit and friends. >> >> I'd prefer to simply drop the underscore. >> > > Okay, this is not really possible for __kvm_request_set(). Hm..... Yeah, requests are always atomic, but have some extra cruft on top of bit operations and underscores are similar in the sense of doing less that the non-underscored version. Also, the underscores were something to make its use look undesirable in the code. kvm_request_set and kvm_request_test_and_clear use a barrier and kvm_request_test could be expected to do so as well. I think that a barrier makes no sense in kvm_request_clear, but called it with underscores for consistency with others and also because I think that some callers of could use a second thought.
