Messages in this thread | | | From | (Paul Gortmaker) | Subject | Re: poor change in ncr53c8xx/linux-2.1.104 | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:13:47 +1000 (EST) |
| |
> > > > So, if getting small delays without extra overhead is that important, then > > this patch is even more efficient than the original (103 and earlier) > > behaviour, and I trust you will agree after comparing the resulting > > assembly. > > No. Right solution is to look over ncr53c8xx.c, and kill DELAY() > altogether. It can be replaced by udelay() and mdelay()s one by one. I > did it and patch is waiting somewhere in the mail que. It makes code > more efficient and much more readable.
I suspect that DELAY has not already been replaced in this fashion so that the driver core can be easily diff'ed against the FreeBSD version, making maintenance of the driver less of a headache. The fact that DELAY is in upper case tends to hint to me that it was a FreeBSD macro originally.
Also note that there would be *no* difference between the efficiency of the generated assembly from the patch I just posted (DELAY as a macro) and the removal of DELAY that you advocate. (Readability is probably improved when large delay values are involved, however...)
Paul.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |