Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:35:40 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 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 http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |