On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > irq_off()
> > irq_on()
> > irq_save(flags)
> > irq_save_off(flags)
> > irq_restore(flags)
>
> I'd prefer the following:
>
> void irq_off(void);
> void irq_on(void);
>
> flags_t irq_save(); /* the old irq_save_off() */
> void irq_restore(flags_t);
>
> void __irq_save(void); /* without saveing */
>
> rational: proper function-like API (should be inlines), irq save
> without disableing is very uncommon, better make the API symmetric.
i agree mostly, but i do not agree with __irq_save() and irq_save().
What's wrong with "flags_t irq_save_off()" - the name carries the proper
meaning, and it also harmonizes with irq_off().
Ingo
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:38 EST