Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750825AbWC2E7y (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:59:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750829AbWC2E7y (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:59:54 -0500 Received: from smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.220]:58496 "HELO smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750825AbWC2E7x (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:59:53 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=F+bxPZe7YCVTTv9OuXbjpQ4IMyhGEZMlgOMTtRFf6X43+fZcpniyqzCgTSPphYdbWOr3Vop913hqKIDausVBmLafwjkjHcT49W1oh6/TYPdvo7fvwxc6ndodEb/TIJ1Q4XTWR7JFFOlUm/IHEhPAEHGcdCIo6PGX3ocgpSh10GI= ; Message-ID: <4429F27C.6020404@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:35:40 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050927 Debian/1.7.8-1sarge3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Zoltan Menyhart , "Chen, Kenneth W" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock() References: <200603281853.k2SIrGg28290@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <4429ADBC.50507@free.fr> <4429CFCA.7010201@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 28 Christoph Lameter wrote: >On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>However, I think it might be reaonsable to use bit lock operations for >>in places like page lock and buffer lock (ie. with acquire and relese >>semantics). It improves ia64 without harming other architectures, and >>also makes the code more expressive. >> > >How would be express the acquire and release semantics? > Hmm, not sure. Maybe a few new bitops with _lock / _unlock postfixes? For page lock and buffer lock we'd just need test_and_set_bit_lock, clear_bit_unlock, smp_mb__after_clear_bit_unlock. I don't know, _for_lock might be a better name. But it's getting long. -- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/