Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 2006-03-29 13:35:40
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-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Mar 29 16:00:37 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-29 16:00:47 EST