lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation
    On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:54:37AM +0900, Hironobu Ishii wrote:
    > This is a readX_check() prototype patch to evaluate
    > the performance disadvantage.

    I think you've just demonstrated why this type of interface is unacceptable:

    > + #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_RECOVERY
    > + {
    > + int read_fail;
    > + read_fail = CHIPREG_READ32(&pa, &ioc->chip->ReplyFifo);
    > + if (read_fail) {
    > + printk("PCI PIO read error:%d\n", read_fail);
    > + /* recovery code */
    > + }
    > + if (pa == 0xFFFFFFFF)
    > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
    > + }
    > + #else
    > if ((pa = CHIPREG_READ32(&ioc->chip->ReplyFifo)) == 0xFFFFFFFF)
    > return IRQ_HANDLED;
    > ! #endif

    We go from two easily understood lines to ten plus the recovery code.
    If indeed recovery is even possible. An exception framework is clearly
    the way to do this.

    --
    "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
    the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
    conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
    to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
    himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep
    he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.034 / U:32.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site