On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:21 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com]
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:37 AM, David Laight
>> wrote:
>> > From: Dan Williams
>> >> It's confusing (to me at least) to keep on remembering the differences
>> >> between event rings (m
From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com]
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:37 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Dan Williams
> >> It's confusing (to me at least) to keep on remembering the differences
> >> between event rings (managed by the hardware) and non-event rings
> >> managed by the
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:37 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Dan Williams
>> It's confusing (to me at least) to keep on remembering the differences
>> between event rings (managed by the hardware) and non-event rings
>> managed by the host. Replace "if (ring->type == FOO)" branches with
>> ring o
From: Dan Williams
> It's confusing (to me at least) to keep on remembering the differences
> between event rings (managed by the hardware) and non-event rings
> managed by the host. Replace "if (ring->type == FOO)" branches with
> ring ops that are specific to the type of ring.
>
> This is a tra
It's confusing (to me at least) to keep on remembering the differences
between event rings (managed by the hardware) and non-event rings
managed by the host. Replace "if (ring->type == FOO)" branches with
ring ops that are specific to the type of ring.
This is a tradeoff of direct code readabilit
