[PATCH] killing sg_last(), and discussion

I looked into killing sg_last(), but really, this is the best its gonna get (moving sg_last to libata-core.c). You could maybe kill one use with caching, but in the other sg_last() callsites there isn't another s/g loop we can stick a last_sg = sg; into. libata is stuck because we undertake the

Re: [PATCH] killing sg_last(), and discussion

On Wed, Oct 31 2007 at 10:49 +0200, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I looked into killing sg_last(), but really, this is the best its gonna get (moving sg_last to libata-core.c). You could maybe kill one use with caching, but in the other sg_last() callsites there isn't another s/g loop

Re: [PATCH] killing sg_last(), and discussion

Boaz Harrosh wrote: On Wed, Oct 31 2007 at 10:49 +0200, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I looked into killing sg_last(), but really, this is the best its gonna get (moving sg_last to libata-core.c). You could maybe kill one use with caching, but in the other sg_last() callsites there

Re: [PATCH] killing sg_last(), and discussion

On Wed, Oct 31 2007 at 12:29 +0200, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boaz Harrosh wrote: On Wed, Oct 31 2007 at 10:49 +0200, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I looked into killing sg_last(), but really, this is the best its gonna get (moving sg_last to libata-core.c). You could maybe