linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] ide: move SFF I/O code to ide-io-sff.c

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: <20090119213101.798fe1cd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:31:01 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
Cc:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ide: move SFF I/O code to ide-io-sff.c

> > I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong. The IDE layer is duplicating a
> > generic level of indirection with its own code - purely because IDE
> > pre-dates that core functionality. The whole IDE layer indirection can go
> > away because Linux has caught up with the needs of the IDE layer.
> 
>     What IDE indirection you're talking about anyway?

As I said earlier ide_mm_inb etc via the function pointers tf_inb/tf_outb
etc.

Given how small those functions are it might even be worth rolling them
into two different versions of the functions like ide_tf_read as surely
it costs more to call them (in size) than to inline the two for those
functions?
--
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/