Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:17:46 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@xxxxxx>, "Grundler, Grant G" <grant.grundler@xxxxxx>, "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <442B9A2A.7000306@xxxxxxxx>
- References: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826A23D40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603291529160.26011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <442B9A2A.7000306@xxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:
> Form semantical point of view, the forms:
>
> bit_foo(..., mode)
> and
> bit_foo_mode(...)
>
> are equivalent.
Correct but the above form leads to less macro definitions.
> However, I do not think your implementation would be efficient due to
> selecting the ordering mode at run time:
The compiler will select that at compile time. One has the option of also
generating run time seletion by specifying a variable instead of a
constant when callig these functions.
> In addition, we may want to inline these primitives...
Of course.
> A compile-time selection of the appropriate code sequence would help.
They are compile time selected.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]