netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/8] smc91x: add SMC91X_IO_SHIFT* macros and make SMC_IO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806240005370.2979@xanadu.home>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>
To:	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] smc91x: add SMC91X_IO_SHIFT* macros and make
 SMC_IO_SHIFT a variable

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Eric Miao wrote:

> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > That's not acceptable as an argument to introduce what actually is a 
> > regression, especially when it should be possible to avoid it.  And the 
> > fact is that there are already designs out there using this chip in 
> > production, serious or not.
> > 
> 
> OK, so is it arguable that boards like lubbock/mainstone/zylonite/littleton
> can be switched over to use the SMC_IO_SHIFT as a variable and leave other
> platforms unchanged due to the fact that these boards are just development
> platforms and do not care much about performance?

As long as the variable is not used for all 
configurations unconditionally so it is still possible to have a fixed 
config where everything is optimized at compile time.


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html