![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes: > Comments are appreciated and welcomed. I really don't see the advantage of this. Writing the same using atomic_inc/ atomic_dec_and_test() implicitely is basically as clean, and you will save the overhead of carrying a release() pointer around. And the "patterns" for that are easy enough that I doubt people will get it wrong. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||