On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:01 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-03-16, at 06:22, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > +#define DEFINE_BRLOCK(name) \
> > + DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, name##_lock); \
> > + void name##_lock_init(void) { \
> > + void name##_wlock(void) { \
> > + void name##_wunlock(void) { \
> > + int name##_atomic_dec_and_wlock__failed(atomic_t *a) {
>
> What makes these macros unpleasant is that it is no longer possible to
> tag to the implementation to see what it does, since there is no real
> declaration for these locks.
>
> Is it possible to change the macros to take the lock name as a
> parameter, like normal lock/unlock functions do, and then have a
> single declaration for br_lock_init(), br_wlock(), etc. macros?
This gets my vote as well. (I've been repeatedly annoyed by some of the
buffer routines that are constructed this way.)
--
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Google, Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
