Re: [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Hironobu Ishii wrote:
>
> This is a readX_check() prototype patch to evaluate
> the performance disadvantage.

Quite frankly, I'd much rather have something more like this:

	clear_pcix_errors(dev);
	..
	x = readX_check(dev, offset);	/* Maybe several ones, maybe in a loop */
	..
	error = read_pcix_errors(dev);
	if (error)
		take_pcix_offline(dev);

in other words, I'd rather _not_ see the "readX_check()" code itself have 
the retry logic and error value handling.

Why? Because on a number of architectures it is entirely possible that the 
error comes as a _asynchronous_ machine exception or similar. So I'd much 
rather have the interfaces be designed for that. Also, it's likely to 
perform a lot better, and result in much clearer code this way (ie you can 
try to set up the whole command before reading the error just once).

It is _also_ going to be a hell of a lot easier to disable the code if you 
want to, with just a

	#ifndef CONFIG_PCI_RECOVERY
	  #define clear_pcix_errors(dev) do { } while (0)
	  #define read_pcix_errors(dev)  (0)
	  #define take_pcix_offline(dev) do { } while (0)
	#endif

in a header file for architectures that don't support it.

Does anybody see any downsides to something like this?

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/