2011/6/2 Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On 2011-06-01, at 8:36 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> - remove unused ext4_{set,clear}_bit_atomic and ext4_find_first_zero_bit
>> - rename ext4_{set,clear}_bit to ext4_test_and_{set,clear}_bit
>> - reintroduce ext4_{set,clear}_bit for __{set,clear}_bit_le
>>
>> This changes ext4_{set,clear}_bit safely, because if someone uses
>> these macros without noticing the change, new ext4_{set,clear}_bit
>> don't have return value and causes compiler errors where the return
>> value is used.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to change all of the ext4_set_bit() calls that
> don't check the return code to use ext4_test_and_set_bit(), just to return
> them back to ext4_set_bit() in the next patch.
>
> If you want to do this in separate steps, and maintain git bisect working,
> then it would be more clear to have two patches:
>
> Patch #1: Add new ext4_test_and_set_bit() macro
> #define ext4_test_and_set_bit __test_and_set_bit_le
> {change ext4_set_bit() calls that check return to ext4_test_and_set_bit()}
>
> Patch #2: Change ext4_set_bit() to not return old bit
> #define ext4_set_bit __set_bit_le
> {nothing else changes}
>
> Alternately, you could just leave the calls that do not check the return
> value as ext4_set_bit() and have only a single patch.
OK, I will do in a single patch. The change will be much smaller than this
version because there are only two calls where ext4_{set,clear}_bit() checks
the return value.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
