Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:11:06 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | RE: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock() |
| |
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:36 PM > > 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. > > I think kernel needs all 4 variants: > > clear_bit > clear_bit_lock > clear_bit_unlock > clear_bit_fence > > And the variant need to permutated on all other bit ops ... I think it > would be indeed a better API and be more explicit about the ordering.
How about clear_bit(why, bit, address) in order to keep the variants down? Get rid of the smp_mb__*_xxxx stuff.
- 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/
| |