On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:13:05AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >
> > > > > +static int scsi_blk_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
> > > >
> > > > For this routine and the other new ones, it may be slightly more
> > > > efficient to pass both dev and sdev as arguments (this depends on how
> > > > smart the compiler's optimizer is). The caller already knows both of
> > > > them, after all.
> > >
> > > What about passing only scsi_device? When device is needed, I can use
> > > &sdev->sdev_gendev. Is this equally efficient?
> >
> > I don't know... The difference is very small in any case. The
> > routines will probably be inlined automatically.
>
> Indeed, I just checked the .s output of the three cases, they are all
> the same. So we just need to care about readability and less of code,
> passing only scsi_device seems to be the simplest, are you OK with this?
Yes, that's fine. Thanks for checking it out.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
