On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Russell King wrote:
> 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
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
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
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Russell King wrote:
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
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I would actually prefer not having the balance_dirty() in
> mark_buffer_dirty() at all, and then just potentially adding an explicit
> balance_dirty to strategic places. There would probably not be that many
> of those strategic places.
>
> As it
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I would actually prefer not having the balance_dirty() in
mark_buffer_dirty() at all, and then just potentially adding an explicit
balance_dirty to strategic places. There would probably not be that many
of those strategic places.
As it stands,
6 matches
Mail list logo
