On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, [email protected] 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
