On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:19:15PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> > function.
>
> I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset, about
> duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having
> higher-level functions, like list management.
>
> > Here's some generic code:
>
> thank you, I have one question, below
>
> > void *wr_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, unsigned int len)
> > {
> > wr_state_t wr_state;
> > void *wr_poking_addr = __wr_addr(dst);
> >
> > local_irq_disable();
> > wr_enable(&wr_state);
> > __wr_memcpy(wr_poking_addr, src, len);
>
> Is __wraddr() invoked inside wm_memcpy() instead of being invoked privately
> within __wr_memcpy() because the code is generic, or is there some other
> reason?
I was assuming that __wr_addr() might be costly, and we were trying to
minimise the number of instructions executed while write-rare was enabled.
