Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:43:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:43:44 -0500 Received: from adsl-67-120-62-187.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([67.120.62.187]:10256 "EHLO exchange.macrolink.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:43:42 -0500 Message-ID: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D1A33DE4@EXCHANGE> From: Ed Vance To: "'Adam J. Richter'" Cc: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, driver@jpl.nasa.gov, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: devfs + PCI serial card = no extra serial ports Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:54:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2454 Lines: 56 On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 4:03 PM, Adam J. Richter wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Russell King wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:28:47PM -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote: > >> There was tangential mention in that thread > >> of a "/proc/serialdev" interface, but nobody really identified any > >> real benefit to it over the existing "uart: unknown" system. > > >There is one benefit, which would be to get rid of some of the yucky > >mess we currently have surrounding the implementation of stuff which > >changes the port base address/irq. > > >Currently, we have to check that we're the only user, shutdown, tweak > >stuff, hope it all goes to plan, and start stuff back up again. If > >something fails, we have to pray we can go back to the original setup > >without stuff breaking. If that fails, we mark the port "unknown". > > >All of this would be a lot simpler if we didn't have the > port actually > >open at the time we change these parameters. We could just lock the > >port against opens, check no one was using it, tweak the settings, > >and release the port. If the changes fail, just report the failure. > > When I filter out prejudicial terminology like "yucky mess", > "pray", "just", etc., I don't see a convincing explanation of how one > approach is going to result in a lower line count, fewer branches, > smaller kernel footprint, faster execution, new capabilities or any > other relevant measure that I can think of in comparison to the > existing approach. > > [ snip ] Hi Adam, Oh, but he _did_ give you information about such things. You filtered out the real message. Allow me to expand the macros ... yucky mess = referenced area has an unnecessarily complex control structure. (more branches & code, slower ...) just = fundamental simplification of the algorithm. (less code and branching needed because less to do, smaller, faster ...) hope, pray = referenced area can generate complex errors that cannot be handled efficiently due to architectural limitations. (more local error handling code and branching, bigger, slower ...) expert opinion != prejudicial speech. Read it again. You'll get the hang of it :-) Cheers, Ed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/