Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:02:23 +0100 | From | Rene Herman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup |
| |
On 01/07/2007 09:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>> In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This >> uses probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an >> expanded version thereof. The set_fs() and >> pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are only done once in >> probe_roms(). > > I don't think this is worthwhile. Its hardly a performance-critical > piece of code, and I think its better to use the straightforward > interface rather than complicating it for some nominal extra > efficiency.
How is it for efficiency? I thought it was for correctness. romsignature is using probe_kernel_adress() while all other accesses to the ROMs there aren't.
If nothing else, anyone reading that code is likely to ask himself the very same question -- why the one, and not the others.
Rene.
- 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/
| |