> Hi Andrea,
>
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 29 May 1998, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > At first I can see test_and_set_bit() very more helpful if
> > implemented atomic.
>
> Correct. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to define a function for it!
> :-)
> >
Will it be to much trouble to define in atomic.h something like
atomic_test_and_set_bit(). Possibly shortening the name ;) On the x86
it'll be just a wrapper that works on atomic_t. Other archs. can
implement it as required.
This way if we want a guaranteed atomic test_and_set on any architecture
we can use the above without second thoughts (and without arguments in
linux-kernel ;))
Cheers,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu