[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1428569815.18187.71.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 18:56:55 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <david.ahern@...cle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: Set pref for mem64 resource of pcie device
On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 21:11 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> That way should be more intrusive to current code, as we are using
> type_mask checking to share the code among
> parent(pref)/child(pref), parent(no-pref)/child(pref), and
> parent(no-pref)/child(pref)
That's fine, as long as the helper knows which one is the parent and
which one is the child.
In fact, as "cute" as the mask trick is, I think it would generally make
the code more self explanatory if it explicitly tested for the
combinations that are supported, ie something like
if (parent_is_pref && !child_is_pref && child->pcie_only)
...
else if (!parent_is_pref)
...
etc...
The impact in performance would be in the noise and the logic of the
algorithm a LOT more explicit.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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