[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080725.014252.193706389.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ben-linux@...ff.org
Cc: bzolnier@...il.com, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
linux-ide@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: recent IDE regression
From: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:34:48 +0100
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:38:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c b/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
> > index 07da5fb..8aae917 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
> > @@ -510,10 +510,8 @@ void ide_fixstring (u8 *s, const int bytecount, const int byteswap)
> >
> > if (byteswap) {
> > /* convert from big-endian to host byte order */
> > - for (p = end ; p != s;) {
> > - unsigned short *pp = (unsigned short *) (p -= 2);
> > - *pp = ntohs(*pp);
> > - }
> > + for (p = end ; p != s;)
> > + be16_to_cpus((u16 *)(p -= 2));
>
> personally, i would much prefer to see the loop being less evil
> like:
>
> for (p = s; p < end; p += 2)
> be16_to_cpus((u16 *)p);
>
> is there an architecture/compiler combo which really makes this
> evil worthwile? on arm (gcc 4.2), both evaluate to the same number of
> instructions.
Regardless of what we want to do with this ugly loop, the endianness
macros should be fixed to consistently evaluate their arguments
once just like real function calls do.
--
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