[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf3quKtdB-uUmPaHzdF=acSgbBp1sFyUYpA=htUm9xJjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:37:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> > > + unsigned short piix4_smba = adapdata->smba;
>> > > u8 smba_en_lo;
>> > > u8 port;
>> > > int retval;
>> > > + int timeout = 0;
>> > > + int smbslvcnt;
>> >
>> > Keep them just after your another added variable.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think this makes sense as a general rule. I'd rather have
>> the variables in an order which makes sense (for human readers or for
>> stack size optimization - unless gcc does it for us?), rather than
>> always adding at the same place. Is there a rationale for doing that? I
>> don't think shrinking the patch size is good enough a reason.
>
> Not really. Some say "Reorder to save bytes", some say "reorder to
> utilize cache lines most". Unless I get some numbers showing the desired
> effect,
> I go for "most readable" approach which is subjective, of
> course. I'd be totally fine with the above.
My motivation was pure readability.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists