On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:13:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 06:02:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:31:07AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > FWIW, we could go for atomic_t there and use > > > atomic_read() & 0xff > > > for partno, with atomic_or()/atomic_and() for set/clear and > > > atomic_read() & constant for test. That might slightly optimize > > > set/clear on some architectures, but setting/clearing flags is > > > nowhere near hot enough for that to make a difference. > > > > Incremental for that (would be folded into 3/8 if we went that way) > > is below; again, I'm not at all sure it's idiomatic enough to bother > > with, but that should at least show what's going on: > > Or this, for that matter: See #work.bd_flags-2 for carve-up of that variant.
