Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:11:03 -0800 (PST) From: mjacob@freebsd.org To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a code reduction function addition to cam_xpt Message-ID: <20061204150922.F18492@ns1.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10611201418m15d50703m37d9d5620e5c832d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061119161631.L44297@ns1.feral.com> <3bbf2fe10611191631h6883b862uf8088533913a7bc6@mail.gmail.com> <20061120221153.GA5155@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <3bbf2fe10611201418m15d50703m37d9d5620e5c832d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Was there ever a consensus about this to the point of:
a) Yes, this is a nice thing to have
b) Should it be a define or a function?
I obviously think yes for #a. I lean toward a function. Comments?
>> > >+void xpt_print(struct cam_path *path, const char
>> *fmt,
>> > >...);
>> > > int xpt_path_string(struct cam_path *path, char
>> *str,
>> > > size_t str_len);
>> > > path_id_t xpt_path_path_id(struct cam_path *path);
>> >
>> > Would not be better a preprocessing stub?
>> >
>> > something like:
>> >
>> > #define XPT_PRINT(path, fmt, ...) do {
>> > \
>> > xpt_print_path(path);
>> > \
>> > printf(fmt, __VA_ARGS__);
>> > \
>> > } while (0)
>>
>> Why? What is gained? FWIW, when I added if_printif it reduced kernel
>> size by several KB. If there's a similar effect here we should take
>> advantage of it.
>
> It is simply faster (one function calling less), even if probabilly
> this could be mitigated with -fomit-frame-pointer (IMHO, this is not
> as over used as if_printf...).
>
> Attilio
>
>
> --
> Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061204150922.F18492>