Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:44:27 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
To: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel
Message-ID: <20040901074427.GG13749@mellanox.co.il>
Reply-To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
References: <20040901072245.GF13749@mellanox.co.il> <20040901073218.GQ16297@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040901073218.GQ16297@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1178
Lines: 26

Hello!
Please do not mail me directly.

Quoting viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk (viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk) "Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel":
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:22:45AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >    2. there's a performance huge overhead for each compat call - there's
> >       a hash lookup in a global hash inside a lock_kernel -
> >       and I think compat performance *is* important.
> > 
> > Further, adding a command to the ioctl suddenly requires changing
> > two places - registration code and ioctl itself.
> 
> So don't add them.  Adding a new ioctl is *NOT* a step to be taken lightly -
> we used to be far too accepting in that area and as somebody who'd waded
> through the resulting dungpiles over the last months I can tell you that
> result is utterly revolting.

Why make it a bigger dungpile then?
And what about the performance overhead?

MST
-
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/