lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44FC3D08.4030707@drzeus.cx>
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:49:44 +0200
From:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
To:	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Support for TI FlashMedia (pci id 104c:8033, 104c:803b) flash
 card readers

Alex Dubov wrote:
> --- Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx> wrote:
>
>   
>> I suppose it's a matter of taste, but personally I think the mere
>> mentioning of 'for' allows you to directly see that there is some kind
>> of looping involved. And it shouldn't be terribly complex:
>>
>> for (i = 0;i < 8;i++) {
>>     resp[i] = readw(addr + RESPONSE + (7 - i)*4) << 16;
>>     resp[i] |= readw(addr + RESPONSE + (6 - i)*4);
>> }
>>
>>     
>
> The actual loop is slightly different (there are 4 elements in cmd->resp):
>   

My bad. I got confused with your eight registers. ;)

> for (i=0; i < 4; i++) {
>       resp[i] = readl(addr + RESP + (7 - 2 * i) * 4) << 16;
>       resp[i] |= readl(addr + RESP + (6 - 2 * i) * 4);
> }
> As there are only 4 iterations it's not a lot of work to spare the compiler from address
> calculation. readl also seems more appropriate than readw, as resp is array of u32.
>
>   

I smell premature optimisation. Besides, the compiler is probably better
than you at unraveling that loop in an efficient manner anyway. You
should generally start with readable and obviously correct code and
optimise only when bottle necks are found. It keeps the code
maintainable in the long run.

As for the readw(), it was because you said only 16 of the 32 bits
contained anything of value.

> I changed the variable and function names to *_timeout, but left the macros as *_TO. This way,
> the macro name corresponds to the datasheet and the meaning is evident from context:
>
> writel(data_timeout, sock->addr + SOCK_MMCSD_DATA_TO);
>
>   

Great. That should allow even the most inexperienced reader to
understand the code.

> Additionally, I added defines for response and command types.
>
>   

Should be ready for merge then. We just need to sort out exactly where
to put the files. And Russell probably wants his say in this as well. ;)

Rgds
Pierre

-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ