Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata-core.c: add another IRQ calls

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alan wrote:
Jeff - at some point we could eliminate a lot of the NULL checks like
these by having the registration code fill in the defaults where
appropriate ?

libata policy up until this point has been to require all drivers fill in the hook, either with the commonly-used default, or with their own variant. Thus, no NULL checks for required hooks, and you get an oops if you fail this requirement. I like that better than defaults buried inside libata-core, where it is easier for programmers to forget them.

But actually, it's an open question for the compiler guys whether this case is preferred:

	if (ap->ops->hook)
		ap->ops->hook(foo, bar);
	else
		commonly_used_default(foo, bar);

or this:

	ap->ops->hook(foo, bar);

With advanced branch prediction in modern CPUs, ISTR the first case may be worth considering, even with the branch.

If the second case is preferred, then Akira should make a bombing run through each driver, applying the patch
+	.irq_on		= ata_irq_on

No NULL checks or registration code bother, in that case.

Comments welcome...

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux