On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:40:36PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:06:32AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:37:09PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > -- > > > > Introduce test_and_set_bit_lock / clear_bit_unlock bitops with lock > > > > semantics. > > > > Add non-trivial for powerpc and ia64. Convert page lock, buffer lock, > > > > bit_spin_lock, tasklet locks to use the new locks. > > > > > > The names are a bit clumsy. How about naming them after the effect, > > > rather than the implementation? It struck me that really these things > > > are bit mutexes -- you can sleep while holding the lock. How about > > > calling them bit_mutex_trylock() and bit_mutex_unlock()? > > > > bit_spin_trylock / bit_spin_unlock be OK? ;) > > We already have a bit_spin_trylock -- it keeps preempt disabled until > you bit_spin_unlock. Oh, and it only actually sets a bit if you've got > SMP or lock debugging on. Nice try though ;-)
OK, I'll be blunt then. I think s/test_and_set_bit_lock/bit_mutex_trylock is much worse ;) - 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/
