* Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 19:46:59 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm afraid is that udelay will be significantly slower, [...]
> >
> > why should it be significantly slower?
>
> out 80h, al is only two bytes. Any alternative that has been
> suggested in this discussion will use more space. mov dx, alt_port;
> out dx, al will be larger, a function call will definitely be a lot
> larger. People have been making changes to the kernel to save a couple
> of hundred bytes of text size.
i've done dozens of patches that saved much less of text size, so yes, i
very much care about code size. But it has been stated in this thread
that most of the _p() API uses in the kernel today are bogus. So
eventually getting rid of the bogus ones will be a net code size
_reduction_. (But even that is besides the point, we prefer clean and
easier to maintain code.)
> I don't know if the difference in code size or the udelay will be
> significantly slower, but I think it might be.
ok, "I dont know but it might be slower" is a perfectly fine statement
instead of your original "it will be slower".
Ingo
--
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/
