Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:14:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:14:36 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:32782 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:14:28 -0500 From: Russell King Message-Id: <200012291031.eBTAVO301699@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove __mark_buffer_dirty and related changes To: marcelo@conectiva.com.br (Marcelo Tosatti) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), quintela@fi.udc.es (Juan Quintela), riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Marcelo Tosatti" at Dec 28, 2000 04:35:21 PM X-Location: london.england.earth.mulky-way.universe X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Marcelo Tosatti writes: > +int mark_buffer_dirty(struct buffer_head *bh) > { > + if (!atomic_set_buffer_dirty(bh)) { > + return 1; > + } > + return 0; > } Any particular reason why you don't to: return !atomic_set_buffer_dirty(bh); which generates better code on some systems? _____ |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+- | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- --- | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html / / | | +-+-+ --- -+- / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\ / | | | --- | +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/