Hi Greg, On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:24:02 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:39:07PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > (...) > > Then I suppose we could inline both functions > > again, for performance. Well, put in short, really revering > > b4028437876866aba4747a655ede00f892089e14 would be the way to go IMHO. > > > > Really, while I understand your envy to protect driver core internals > > from unwanted access, the cost here was simply too high IMHO, both in > > terms of getting things right and performance. Some drivers are calling > > dev_get_drvdata() directly or indirectly repeatedly at run-time. They > > had no reason not to as this used to be so fast, and now it is no > > longer an inline function, it has conditionals and a double pointer > > indirection... > > > > Plus, I can't think of anything really bad that could result from > > accessing driver_data directly, contrary to the other members of struct > > device_private. > > (...) > > Thanks for the detailed response, I think I'll just revert most of that > patch and see if it's still workable.
Any news on this? -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
