[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:

> I have to agree with Hans and I'd much prefer making the mode part of
> the operation's
> name and not a parameter. Besides being The Right Thing, it saves a
> lot of typing.

IMHO It reduces the flexibility of the scheme and makes it not extendable.
Leads to a large quantity of macros that are difficult to manage.

Also some higher level functions may want to have the mode passed to them
as parameters. See f.e. include/linux/buffer_head.h. Without the
parameters you will have to maintain farms of definitions for all cases.

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: 2006-03-31 02:52    [W:0.129 / U:5.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site