Hello.
Jeff Garzik 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?
Please read all the thread, and you'll see that Alan's CFA patch was
totally wrong in that part from the very start -- CF devices don't report ATA
standard support in word 80, that's forbidden (!) by the CF specs since at
least 2.1.
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.
Not the case here -- the fix is very local, improvements are spread over
several inlines.
Jeff
MBR, Sergei
--
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
