On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Greg Troxel wrote:
Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-source-change...@mumble.net> writes:
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
From: Jukka Ruohonen <jruoho...@iki.fi>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +0000, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testing for dead node.
> Use ISSET() to test flags, add assertions.
As I wrote in the manual page, I'd rather see ISSET(3) et. al. disappear,
i.e. these obscure rather than clarify...
I disagree. Phrases like `(vp->v_iflag & (VI_XLOCK | VI_CLEAN)) == 0'
make my head's parser stumble -- there are just enough complements to
juggle that it overwhelms my brain registers for the fast path. I'd
rather read `!ISSET(vp->v_iflag, (VI_XLOCK | VI_CLEAN))'.
FWIW, I agree with Taylor.
Me, too. But I'd rather that we had the equivalent ISCLR() macro, too,
to remove another negation/complement.
BTW, why do we have man pages for isset(9)/isclr(9)/setbit(9)/clrbit(9)
and then a separate page for SET(9)?
And why do we not have manlinks for ISSET(9) and ISCLR(9)?
And no cross-refs?
:) :) :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
