Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

From: Christoph Lameter <>
Date: 2006-03-31 12:40:22
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, wrote:

> The only conceivable reason for passing the mode as a separate parameter is
> - To change the mode dynamically at run time.
> - To share common code when the sequence is long and mostly shared
>   between the various modes (as in open(2) or ll_rw_block()).

There is usually quite complex code involved although the code generated 
is minimal.

> On the downside, it's more typing and uglier than a series of
> frob_bit_nonatomic()
> 	(probably temporarily or permanently aliased to frob_bit())
> frob_bit_atomic()
> frob_bit_acquire()
> frob_bit_release()
> frob_bit_barrier()
> functions, and those also prevent you from doing something silly like
> frob_bit(x, y, O_DIRECT).  Also, the MODE_ prefix might be wanted by
> something else.

Ok. We could change the MODE_ prefix but the problem with not passing this 
as a parameter that there are numerous functions derived from bit ops that 
are then also needed in lots of different flavors. Passing a parameter 
cuts down the number of variations dramatically.

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 12:42:40 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-31 12:42:49 EST