On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > The only conceivable reason for passing the mode as a separate parameter is > - To change the mode dynamically at run time. > - To share common code when the sequence is long and mostly shared > between the various modes (as in open(2) or ll_rw_block()). There is usually quite complex code involved although the code generated is minimal. > On the downside, it's more typing and uglier than a series of > > frob_bit_nonatomic() > (probably temporarily or permanently aliased to frob_bit()) > frob_bit_atomic() > frob_bit_acquire() > frob_bit_release() > frob_bit_barrier() > > functions, and those also prevent you from doing something silly like > frob_bit(x, y, O_DIRECT). Also, the MODE_ prefix might be wanted by > something else. Ok. We could change the MODE_ prefix but the problem with not passing this as a parameter that there are numerous functions derived from bit ops that are then also needed in lots of different flavors. Passing a parameter cuts down the number of variations dramatically. - : 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
![]() |