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

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:

> Form semantical point of view, the forms:
> 
> 	bit_foo(..., mode)
> and
> 	bit_foo_mode(...)
> 
> are equivalent.

Correct but the above form leads to less macro definitions.
 
> However, I do not think your implementation would be efficient due to
> selecting the ordering mode at run time:

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.

> In addition, we may want to inline these primitives...

Of course.
 
> A compile-time selection of the appropriate code sequence would help.

They are compile time selected.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/