On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 10:14:25AM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > I don't think there is any real performance improvement to be expected of > this patch. If you have good a reason why non-atomic bitops should not be > used I guess this patch could be dropped. No. This is a pointless patch. Why should I have to review a patch that doesn't provide any benifits? The double underscores in front of the function name means it's tricky. Simple code is prefered over complicated code unless there is a speed up. regards, dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
