[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140122082911.532e3c25@endymion.delvare>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:29:11 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Wu <lekensteyn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Freeing of dev->p
Hi Greg,
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:24:02 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:39:07PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > (...)
> > Then I suppose we could inline both functions
> > again, for performance. Well, put in short, really revering
> > b4028437876866aba4747a655ede00f892089e14 would be the way to go IMHO.
> >
> > Really, while I understand your envy to protect driver core internals
> > from unwanted access, the cost here was simply too high IMHO, both in
> > terms of getting things right and performance. Some drivers are calling
> > dev_get_drvdata() directly or indirectly repeatedly at run-time. They
> > had no reason not to as this used to be so fast, and now it is no
> > longer an inline function, it has conditionals and a double pointer
> > indirection...
> >
> > Plus, I can't think of anything really bad that could result from
> > accessing driver_data directly, contrary to the other members of struct
> > device_private.
>
> (...)
>
> Thanks for the detailed response, I think I'll just revert most of that
> patch and see if it's still workable.
Any news on this?
--
Jean Delvare
--
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