On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Peter Chubb wrote: > > I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having read_can_lock() > and write_can_lock() > > Meaning: > read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded > write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded. Yes. This has the advantage of being readable, and the "sense" of the test always being obvious. We have a sense problem with the "trylock()" cases - some return "it was locked" (semaphores), and some return "I succeeded" (spinlocks), so not only is the sense not immediately obvious from the usage, it's actually _different_ for semaphores and for spinlocks. So I like "read_can_lock()", since it's also obvious what it returns. (And yes, we should fix the semaphore trylock return code, dammit.) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Jan 20 10:57:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST