On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> such optimizations because maintenance cost > potential savings (i.e. >> making SCSI quirks optional, I have draft patch for this, itself cuts >> like 10k). > > Interesting in itself but irrelevant because the current situation is > that a piix change cannot break oldpiix, efar, it8213, radisys etc and > vice versa. Particuarly important when the other chips are not common so > test coverage is difficult, and that far outweighs the maintenance > savings for other things, especially as this is code that just doesn't > change. > >> >> > It also leads to hideous uglies in the main code paths like this : >> > >> > + unsigned int has_sitre = (dev->vendor != 0x8086 || >> > + dev->device != 0x1230); >> > >> > which also has exactly zero comments. >> >> has_sitre variable name is documentation in itself for anyone knowing >> the hardware or has read a chipset/code documentation. > > And naturally anyone randomly glancing at the code knows why it's > checking 0x8086 & 0x1230, and why the radisys check interacts with it. > > Bartlomiej - those are a mess, a complete and total mess. It doesn't > necessarily argue against folding them together, but at least do a clean > job of it. I beg to differ regardless "the mess" comment but well, you can always take my work and "add value" to it like in 2009 (when somehow you miss that your pata_rdc also needs locking fixes but you were more concerned with little differences between my work and your "dreamwork"..) -- 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
