Hi, On Wed, May 11 2011, Tony Olech wrote: > With reference to Arnd's summation of issues with the > previous version of the patch which can be found at > "http://ns3.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg06693.html"; > I have made nearly all of the changes requested. > > I have not removed of the __packed keyword from those > structures that map onto the adapterâs hardware, the > reason for Arnd's request, as I understand it, is that > there is a compiler issue with other architectures > that result in slightly slower code. Since those > structures exist for translation to/from the adapter > the efficiency of inserting or extracting data can > not possibly be an issue. I do not see how having > the structures marked with the __packed keyword is > anything but good programming practice since if > clearly distinguishes those structures from ordinary > working structures. > > There are 2 "if then else if .." decision branches > that I cannot replace with a single "switch case .." > statement because there is not a single unique > expression those value is tested against constant > values. > > I have not chopped the void function "send_command" > into 2 as Arnd requested, as the function, in spite > of being 291 lines long is logically very simple > and any split would be wholly arbitrary and in my > view just make it more opaque. Since the remaining objections are minor style issues, I think it makes sense to merge this to mmc-next now and deal with further improvements as patches on top of this one (which could get rebased into the original patch later, or not). Would any reviewers like to provide their Reviewed-by before I do so? Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- 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
