On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 18:14 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > There's no trade-off in this patch for faster/larger. > > This patch is simply smaller. Smaller is better. > > This feels a bit like saying pink is better than red because it's > more pink. Silly. If you can't say smaller total object code that performs the same task identically is better, I think we can't discuss much of anything about code together. Any printk related mechanism is not fast-path so any icache dilution isn't an issue. > That said, I'm not arguing against this patch as such. Making things > smaller "just because" usually doesn't cause problems. It seems more like you haven't read the patch. > But I was > hoping that we might be after some more tangible gains here, and > thus pointed out that there may be a better way to achieve even > bigger gains. Sure, it's just any such a discussion should not affect this patch being applied. This patch reduces the argument count of the drm_printk (now drm_dbg) call and so is faster to execute even if the emit test is internal to the drm_dbg function. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
