[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179910503.17849.19.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:55:03 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:46 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> Taking a quick look at the async_*.c stuff, the functions in question
> basically seem to be of the form
>
> check_if_we_can_do_it_async();
> if (async_ok) {
> /* do async stuff */
> /* that's where the dma mapping creeps in */
> } else {
> /* do it sync */
> /* seems fine for us */
> }
Hmm, on what does the async_ok depend? Is that a runtime check that is
done once or is it something more complicated like the availability of a
dma slot? If it is a simple runtime check then there should be a
operations structure that has indirect function pointers for the
different async_memset_{sync,async}() functions. Instead of doing the
async_ok check just call the function. That would save an if as well.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
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