On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:13:31 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, Bartlomiej.
Hi, > This is a new version of ide_do_taskfile.patch. Compared to the > original do_rw_task(), only one more 'if' is used in the hot path, so > I think the performance issue can be ignored now. Also, there's no > userland visible change with this patch. Everything should work just > as it did with do_rw_taskfile()/flagged_taskfile(). > > do_taskfile() is different from do_rw_taskfile() in that Is there any gain in changing name to do_taskfile()? > - It uses task->data_phase to determine whether it's a DMA command > or not. this is user-space visible change (it is right thing to do, I just wanted to point the fact) > do_taskfile() is different from flagged_taskfile() in that > > - No (TASKFILE_MULTI_IN && !mult_count) check. ide_taskfile_ioctl() > checks the same thing, so it doesn't change anything. The check may be needed. AFAIR drive->mult_count may change before our taskfile request is started. > - No task->tf_out_flags handling. ide_end_drive_cmd() ignores it > anyway, so, again, it doesn't change anything. I guess you mean ->tf_in_flags? > So, what do you think? This patch looks much better but could you move writing taskfile registers to separate helpers (one for non-flagged and one for flagged)? Probably splitting non-flagged taskfile load helper off do_rw_taskfile() should be done in separate patch. We can then use this helper in ide-disk.c for __ide_do_rw_taskfile() (we can't do direct conversion to do_rw_taskfile() yet for various reasons). Thanks, Bartlomiej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/