On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:13:47AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:53:25PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > +#define fbl_lock(z, i) spin_lock(&fbl(z, i, lock)) > > > > +#define fbl_unlock(z, i) spin_unlock(&fbl(z, i, lock)) > > > > > > Even if it is just temporary, I don't think adding these wrappers > > > make much sense. > > > > > If open-coded, it looks like: > > > > spin_lock(&z->fbl[BUSY].lock); > > Give the fbl structure a name and you can have a local variable for it, > which will make all this a lot more readable. And then unless there is > a really good reason to iterate over this as an array just have three > of these structs embedded named free, busy and lazy. > OK. I can go that way. -- Uladzislau Rezki
