On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:51:50PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > I don't know why Christoph asked for these; he's usually against > obfuscating wrapper functions. > > bit_spin_lock is fine in callers so please leave it at that. > Other users may not want a spinlock, or might want to use > bit_spin_is_locked, bit_spin_trylock etc. See the comments on the previous posting of this. It provides a useful abtraction. And yes, eventually we might need more wrappers, but we can add them as needed. -- 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
