On Tuesday 22 February 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The description of the test case is probably suboptimal. What this does > > is 32 KB accesses, with 32 KB alignment in the pre and post case, but 16 KB > > alignment in the "on" case. The idea here is that it should never do > > any access with less than "--blocksize" aligment. > > > > Now I feel slightly confused :(. > > -b 16384 implies blocksize = 16384, maxalign is 8mb due to count 32, > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, pre, blocksize, > align - blocksize, maxalign, > do_write); // > <----------------- read 16k at align - 16k with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, on, blocksize, > align - blocksize / 2, maxalign, > do_write); // > <----------------- read 16k at align - 8k with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, post, blocksize, > align, maxalign, do_write); // > <-------- read 16k at align with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > I hope I'm not missing something obvious... No, you are absolutely right. I think I changed this once and no longer remembered what the final version did. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
