lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 15/15] PNP: convert resource options to single linked list
    On 04-06-08 01:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

    > That's definitely backwards. I reversed the sizes, so we'll have
    > 8 bits for the priority byte (including compatibility/performance/
    > robustness) and 16 bits for the dependent set number. Actually,
    > I made the priority field 12 bits so we'd have space to keep
    > PNP_RES_PRIORITY_INVALID as a truly out-of-band value.

    Sounds perfect.

    >>> + for (i = 0; i == 0 || i < dev->num_dependent_sets; i++) {
    >>> + ret = pnp_assign_resources(dev, i);
    >>> + if (ret == 0)
    >>> return 0;
    >> Eeeew. Perhaps:
    >>
    >> i = 0;
    >> do {
    >> ret = pnp_assign_resources(dev, i);
    >> if (ret == 0)
    >> return 0;
    >> } while (++i < dev->num_dependent_sets);
    >
    > Heh :-) I vacillated on that one because I have a personal aversion
    > to "do { ... } while ()", especially with a pre-increment. How would
    > you feel about this alternative?
    >
    > ret = pnp_assign_resources(dev, 0);
    > if (ret == 0)
    > return 0;
    >
    > for (i = 1; i < dev->num_dependent_sets; i++) {
    > ret = pnp_assign_resources(dev, i);
    > if (ret == 0)
    > return 0;
    > }

    You could fix the pre-increment by sticking a i++ inside the loop body
    but there's no arguing with personal aversions...

    Yes, I think the latter is better. Straight-forward and clear.

    >> Why do you do 0x800, 0x400 in that order? Shouldn't it just be 0x400,
    >> 0x800 to mimick the old order?
    >
    > I think they do end up in the correct order because I'm passing the
    > same list_head to both list_add() calls, e.g., we'll have something
    > like this:
    >
    > io -> ...
    > io -> (io + 0x800) -> ...
    > io -> (io + 0x400) -> (io + 0x800) -> ...

    Yep. Just needed to see it happen once in the quirk testing I just now did.

    > I need to go back over all your comments and make sure I've addressed
    > them all, then I'll post the revised patches, hopefully tomorrow.
    >
    > Thanks again for all your work reviewing and testing these. It's
    > been incredibly useful.

    I've been impressed by this work. This is a good redesign of PnP with a
    fully bisectable way to get there. And PnP was in need of some work...

    Rene.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-04 02:05    [W:0.023 / U:1.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site