[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A45237D9-5E44-4900-86C4-C59666FA3142@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:15:48 -0700
From: Bruce Leonard <brucle@...thlink.net>
To: dedekind@...radead.org
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices
On Aug 26, 2008, at 10:40 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:27 -0700, Bruce Leonard wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Inline function for determining the size of the MTD device,
>> independant
>> + * of old or new way of doing things.
>> + *
>> + */
>> +static inline u_int64_t device_size(struct mtd_info *a)
>> +{
>> + return a->num_eraseblocks == 0 ? a->size : a->num_eraseblocks * a-
>> >erasesize;
>> +}
>
> I do not think it is a good idea to do multiplication every time we
> need
> MTD device size. It is unnecessarily large overhead in terms of speed
> and code size.
>
> Did you consider a possibility of just making mtd->size 64 bit?
I did consider making size 64-bit, but it seemed less intrusive to go
the direction I did. I wanted to change as little code as possible
but at the same time make it obvious there was a fundamental change.
There's also a desire to move more in the direction of a BIO-like
aspect to the MTD layer and some of the suggestions I got early made
it seem that this would make that future move easier.
>
> Or using eraseblock:offset pairs instead of absolute address?
I didn't really see how I could convey the idea of size using
eraseblock:offset.
Bruce
--
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