Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
+ if (id[ATA_ID_MAJOR_VER] == 0xFFFF)
+ return 0;
+ return (id[ATA_ID_MAJOR_VER] & (1 << v)) ? 1 : 0;
Refer to afa_dev_cf_sata() on how it's done in really optimal way.
To what ? - there is no ata or afa_dev_cf_sata ?
Very funny. Meant to be ata_dev_is_sata(), of course.
We don't have one of those either - do you mean ata_id_is_sata ? If so
then yes that looks like it might be slightly cleaner although its
probably one instruction difference from the .s files.
That extra *if* cost more than instruction I think.
Either way, this is irrelevant, since this isn't used in any hot path
that I am aware of... :)
Alan just posted a reasonable explanation in the "The logic is this"
email, maybe we can reboot the discussion from there?
Responding to a side point, I don't think its a big deal to combine
fixes and improvements into a single patch, if you are dealing with the
same few lines of code. Just make sure the patch description (and/or
code comment) enumerates the fixes and improvements both...
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
