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: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:10:37 -0800
- Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>, 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>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
* David Mosberger-Tang (David.Mosberger@xxxxxxx) 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.
> For example:
>
> + set_bit_mode(nr, addr, MODE_ATOMIC);
>
> would simply become
>
> + set_bit_atomic(nr, addr);
That's the approach Xen took as well.
thanks,
-chris
-
: 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]