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

From: Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen_at_intel.com>
Date: 2006-03-30 10:49:08
Christoph Lameter wrote on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:33 PM
> Hmmm... Maybe we therefore need to add a mode to each bit operation in 
> the kernel?
> 
> With that we can also get rid of the __* version of bitops.
> 
> Possible modes are
> 
> NON_ATOMIC 	Do not perform any atomic ops at all.
> 
> ATOMIC		Atomic but unordered
> 
> ACQUIRE		Atomic with acquire semantics (or lock semantics)
> 
> RELEASE 	Atomic with release semantics (or unlock semantics)
> 
> FENCE		Atomic with full fence.
> 
> This would require another bitops overhaul.
> 
> Maybe we can preserve the existing code with bitops like __* mapped to 
> *(..., NON_ATOMIC) and * mapped to *(..., FENCE) and the gradually fix the 
> rest of the kernel.


Is gcc smart enough to turn constant argument and collapse inline of
inline function?  I hope it does.

Lots of other comments on actual code, but I will defer that until
some consensus is made on the API.  This would be nice to have.

- Ken
-
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 Thu Mar 30 10:49:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-30 10:49:16 EST