Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: David Mosberger-Tang <David.Mosberger@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:49:22 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxxx>, "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: <ed5aea430603301642t283174f6wa0587089920ca3a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603301300430.1014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603301615540.2023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ed5aea430603301642t283174f6wa0587089920ca3a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> I have to agree with Hans and I'd much prefer making the mode part of
> the operation's
> name and not a parameter. Besides being The Right Thing, it saves a
> lot of typing.
IMHO It reduces the flexibility of the scheme and makes it not extendable.
Leads to a large quantity of macros that are difficult to manage.
Also some higher level functions may want to have the mode passed to them
as parameters. See f.e. include/linux/buffer_head.h. Without the
parameters you will have to maintain farms of definitions for all cases.
-
: 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]
