Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:

quoted text
>> +enum{
>> +	__BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT,	/* wait for completion */
>> +	__BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER,	/*issue request with barrier */
>> +};
>> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT		(1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT)
>> +#define BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER	(1 << __BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER)
>
> This is a very awkward stayle to define flags.  There really should
> be no need for the __-prefixed version.  While you're using them for
> test/set_bit and co there's no reason to use these atomic bitops here.
I need both bit_num(used inside function) and flag (1<<bit_num)
which is used by function caller.
No problem, i'll change it whenever you like
do you like following?
enum{
	IFN_BLKDEV_WAIT,	/* wait for completion */
	IFN_BLKDEV_BARRIER,	/*issue request with barrier */
};
#define BLKDEV_WAIT		(1 << IFN_BLKDEV_WAIT)
#define BLKDEV_BARRIER		(1 << IFN_BLKDEV_BARRIER)
--
unsubscribe notice
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/