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>