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

From: Christoph Lameter <>
Date: 2006-03-31 05:17:38
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Boehm, Hans wrote:

> > The compiler will select that at compile time. One has the 
> > option of also generating run time seletion by specifying a 
> > variable instead of a constant when callig these functions.
> I would view the latter as a disadvantage, since I can't think of a case
> in which you wouldn't want it reported as an error instead, at least if
> you care about performance.  If you know of one, I'd be very interested.

In that case: We could check that a constant is passed at compile time.
> The first form does have the advantage that it's possible to build up
> more complicated primitives from simpler ones without repeating the
> definition four times.

What is the first form? The advantage of passing a parameter is more 
compact code and less definitions.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Mar 31 05:18:25 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-31 05:18:33 EST