[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:17:56 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc libata sff 32bit PIO regression
Hello.
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> (though much more verbose: please simplify if you see a better way).
>>>
>> How about the following?
>>
>> unsigned char *tail = buf + buflen - slop;
>> unsigned char pad[4];
>>
>> if (rw == READ) {
>> if (slop <= 2)
>> ioread16_rep(data_addr, pad, 1);
>> else
>> ioread32_rep(data_addr, pad, 1);
>> memcpy(tail, pad, slop);
>>
>
> Too many tabs on the memcpy.
>
Hey, this is not a patch, and I was using Thunderbird's msg editor --
which isn;t really good to tabs. :-)
>> } else {
>> memcpy(pad, tail, slop);
>> memset(pad + slop, 0, 4 - slop);
>>
>
> And we could make that line even more complicated!
>
We could use memzero() but memset() should boil down to it anyway.
> But I think unsigned char pad[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0} would be better.
>
Not really, we don't need to waste time initiazlizing it on reads --
I hope you understand that it will require real code to write all those
zeros?). Besides, only {0} should be enough as other entries should be
implitly zeroed).
> Though Alan didn't have it initialized at all: I don't know if
> that was oversight or superior knowledge. In Alan's case, one
> should usually assume the latter.
These bytes can be anything actually as a device should just ignore them.
>> if (slop <= 2)
>> iowrite16_rep(data_addr, pad, 1);
>> else
>> iowrite32_rep(data_addr, pad, 1);
>> }
>>
>
> Well, I don't know.
I do. :-)
> I felt really pleased with using ioread16_rep
> and the char array in my original patch, where slop might be 1 or 2
> or 3; but once it comes down to always one single PIO op, I felt
> it too lazy to be using the _rep form.
>
It should do the Right Thing WRT the byte reordering (which is a lack
thereof ;-) while your code had to muck with it explicitly. And of
course it's shorter -- because of that.
> I really don't care, whatever works and best satisfies Alan.
>
I thought we should care about general user satisfaction, not just
Alan's... :-)
>>> - return words << 2;
>>> +
>>> + return buflen + (buflen & 1);
>>>
>>>
>> return (buflen + 1) & ~1;
>>
>> Well, I guess I could just have posted my own patch... :-)
>>
>
> Yes, do go ahead, I'm not desperate to get my name in there!
>
I'm not actually very enthusiastic in getting blamed for the
breakage, given the Alan's example. ;-)
> Hugh
>
MBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists