[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
Christoph Lameter wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>However, I think it might be reaonsable to use bit lock operations for
>>in places like page lock and buffer lock (ie. with acquire and relese
>>semantics). It improves ia64 without harming other architectures, and
>>also makes the code more expressive.
>How would be express the acquire and release semantics?

Hmm, not sure. Maybe a few new bitops with _lock / _unlock postfixes?
For page lock and buffer lock we'd just need test_and_set_bit_lock,
clear_bit_unlock, smp_mb__after_clear_bit_unlock.

I don't know, _for_lock might be a better name. But it's getting long.


Send instant messages to your online friends

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-29 07:02    [W:0.047 / U:1.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site