Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Rene Herman wrote:
> In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This uses
> probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an expanded
> version thereof. The set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are
> only done once in probe_roms().
>
> Accessing the length byte at rom[2] with __get_user() is overkill
> after just checking the signature at 0 and 1 but direcly accessing
> only that makes for inconsistent code IMO. It's only a .fixup entry...
>
> I can't say I'm all that sure that that pagefault_disable() call is
> still applicable now that it got expanded into the probe_roms() stage? 

I don't think this is worthwhile.  Its hardly a performance-critical
piece of code, and I think its better to use the straightforward
interface rather than complicating it for some nominal extra efficiency.

    J
-
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/