Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757840AbZFWF54 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:57:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754318AbZFWF5p (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:57:45 -0400 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:41736 "EHLO longford.logfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752193AbZFWF5o (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:57:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:57:35 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: David Woodhouse Cc: Chris Simmonds , Arnd Bergmann , Marco , Sam Ravnborg , Linux FS Devel , Linux Embedded , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] Pramfs: Include files Message-ID: <20090623055735.GA23119@logfs.org> References: <4A33A7EC.6070008@gmail.com> <200906221317.04166.arnd@arndb.de> <4A3FC7F1.5050108@gmail.com> <200906222033.20883.arnd@arndb.de> <4A3FDBFE.8050509@2net.co.uk> <20090622214155.GA19332@logfs.org> <1245709239.25547.394.camel@macbook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1245709239.25547.394.camel@macbook.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1298 Lines: 30 On Mon, 22 June 2009 23:20:39 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 23:41 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > Four loops doing the same increment with different data types: long, > > u64, we32 (wrong-endian) and we64. Compile with _no_ optimizations. > > That's a bit of a poor test then. Especially on architectures with a > load-and-swap instruction where it really shouldn't be any slower at > all. > > (Although since GCC doesn't have an __attribute__((littleendian)) I'm > not entirely sure how to entice it into _using_ said instruction for the > purpose of the test... I think the kernel does manage somehow though, if > you get the sources _just_ right.) Feel free to improve the test. It is admittedly crap and designed to support Chris' argument. But seeing that it still fails to do so and Arnd has already shown one improvement that weakened Chris' argument, I guess we can all agree that further improvments won't change the conclusion, can we? ;) Jörn -- It's just what we asked for, but not what we want! -- anonymous -- 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/