Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:18:43 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Brooks Davis" <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, mjacob@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a code reduction function addition to cam_xpt Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10611201418m15d50703m37d9d5620e5c832d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061120221153.GA5155@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20061119161631.L44297@ns1.feral.com> <3bbf2fe10611191631h6883b862uf8088533913a7bc6@mail.gmail.com> <20061120221153.GA5155@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/11/20, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 01:31:01AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > > 2006/11/20, mjacob@freebsd.org <mjacob@freebsd.org>: > > >There are *far* too many: > > > > > > xpt_print_path(path); > > > printf("foo\n"); > > > > > >constructs. How about we just join them? > > > > > >==== //depot/projects/newisp/cam/cam_xpt.c#12 - > > >/home/FreeBSD/p4/newisp/cam/cam_xpt.c ==== > > >@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ > > > #include <cam/scsi/scsi_all.h> > > > #include <cam/scsi/scsi_message.h> > > > #include <cam/scsi/scsi_pass.h> > > >+#include <machine/stdarg.h> /* for xpt_print below */ > > > #include "opt_cam.h" > > > > > > /* Datastructures internal to the xpt layer */ > > >@@ -4160,6 +4161,16 @@ > > > } > > > } > > > > > >+void > > >+xpt_print(struct cam_path *path, const char *fmt, ...) > > >+{ > > >+ va_list ap; > > >+ xpt_print_path(path); > > >+ va_start(ap, fmt); > > >+ vprintf(fmt, ap); > > >+ va_end(ap); > > >+} > > >+ > > >==== //depot/projects/newisp/cam/cam_xpt.h#1 - > > >/home/FreeBSD/p4/newisp/cam/cam_xpt.h ==== > > >@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ > > > int xpt_path_comp(struct cam_path *path1, > > > struct cam_path *path2); > > > void xpt_print_path(struct cam_path *path); > > >+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?3bbf2fe10611201418m15d50703m37d9d5620e5c832d>