Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:03:42 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Toomas Soome <tsoome@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r337878 - head/stand/i386/libi386 Message-ID: <CANCZdfpr%2B5rmEwkzZckOZG5sydMLmZ5AdGoQFuSoPFkVNUHK7w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18E7897D-9985-44CE-B648-2A839417B1BC@me.com> References: <201808152225.w7FMP5J2018006@repo.freebsd.org> <1534372134.1466.21.camel@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfpR_v5_ES=XhpKK6GD6Hd7zneObwKQwf40P0aDLxWh=WA@mail.gmail.com> <05b36083-9f4d-658e-ab39-e8c317d01db7@FreeBSD.org> <18E7897D-9985-44CE-B648-2A839417B1BC@me.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> wrote: > > > > On 16 Aug 2018, at 09:59, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/15/18 11:59 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org <mailto: > ian@freebsd.org>> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 2018-08-15 at 22:25 +0000, Toomas Soome wrote: > >>> Author: tsoome > >>> Date: Wed Aug 15 22:25:05 2018 > >>> New Revision: 337878 > >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/337878 < > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/337878>; > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> libi386: remove bd_read() and bd_write() wrappers > >>> > >>> Those wroappers are nice, but do not really add much value. > >>> > >>> Modified: > >>> head/stand/i386/libi386/biosdisk.c > >>> > >>> Modified: head/stand/i386/libi386/biosdisk.c > >>> ===================================================================== > >>> ========= > >>> --- head/stand/i386/libi386/biosdisk.c Wed Aug 15 21:47:03 > >>> 2018 (r337877) > >>> +++ head/stand/i386/libi386/biosdisk.c Wed Aug 15 22:25:05 > >>> 2018 (r337878) > >>> @@ -94,10 +94,7 @@ static int nbdinfo = 0; > >>> > >>> static void bd_io_workaround(struct disk_devdesc *dev); > >>> > >>> -static int bd_read(struct disk_devdesc *dev, daddr_t dblk, int blks, > >>> - caddr_t dest); > >>> -static int bd_write(struct disk_devdesc *dev, daddr_t dblk, int > >>> blks, > >>> - caddr_t dest); > >>> +static int bd_io(struct disk_devdesc *, daddr_t, int, caddr_t, int); > >>> static int bd_int13probe(struct bdinfo *bd); > >>> > >>> static int bd_init(void); > >>> @@ -506,7 +503,7 @@ bd_realstrategy(void *devdata, int rw, daddr_t > >>> dblk, s > >>> case F_READ: > >>> DEBUG("read %d from %lld to %p", blks, dblk, buf); > >>> > >>> - if (blks && (rc = bd_read(dev, dblk, blks, buf))) { > >>> + if (blks && (rc = bd_io(dev, dblk, blks, buf, 0))) { > >>> /* Filter out floppy controller errors */ > >>> if (BD(dev).bd_flags != BD_FLOPPY || rc != > >>> 0x20) { > >>> printf("read %d from %lld to %p, > >>> error: 0x%x\n", > >>> @@ -518,7 +515,7 @@ bd_realstrategy(void *devdata, int rw, daddr_t > >>> dblk, s > >>> case F_WRITE : > >>> DEBUG("write %d from %lld to %p", blks, dblk, buf); > >>> > >>> - if (blks && bd_write(dev, dblk, blks, buf)) { > >>> + if (blks && bd_io(dev, dblk, blks, buf, 1)) { > >>> DEBUG("write error"); > >>> return (EIO); > >>> } > >>> @@ -713,20 +710,6 @@ bd_io(struct disk_devdesc *dev, daddr_t dblk, > >>> int blks > >>> } > >>> > >>> return (0); > >>> -} > >>> - > >>> -static int > >>> -bd_read(struct disk_devdesc *dev, daddr_t dblk, int blks, caddr_t > >>> dest) > >>> -{ > >>> - > >>> - return (bd_io(dev, dblk, blks, dest, 0)); > >>> -} > >>> - > >>> -static int > >>> -bd_write(struct disk_devdesc *dev, daddr_t dblk, int blks, caddr_t > >>> dest) > >>> -{ > >>> - > >>> - return (bd_io(dev, dblk, blks, dest, 1)); > >>> } > >>> > >>> /* > >>> > >> > >> This would be a more satisfying change if there were something like > >> > >> #define BD_RD 0 > >> #define BD_WR 1 > >> > >> so that it was clear at a glance what a bd_io() call is doing. > >> > >> > >> I think that's a good idea... > > > > Arguably the bd_read/write wrappers were even clearer (and there purpose > > was readability in that case). > > Yes thats true, but also will leave us in mercy of inlining etc.. anyhow, > *my* purpose is to get the line of changes done (to be able to perform IO > with >512 sector size, merge with bioscd.c and split up floppy, cd and hdd > cases, so the user can distinguish the devices. > OK, Now I'm confused. All this sounds like regression, apart from the >512 sector thing. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpr%2B5rmEwkzZckOZG5sydMLmZ5AdGoQFuSoPFkVNUHK7w>