From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa() Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:16:41 +0300 Message-ID: <497E1A29.2020004@ru.mvista.com> References: <200901231615.38011.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <497B9EE4.8010807@ru.mvista.com> <497E0548.80904@ru.mvista.com> <20090126190801.7d198246@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E0F76.6020606@ru.mvista.com> <20090126193550.27eef301@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E12BC.1080809@ru.mvista.com> <20090126195430.3a8aa1ce@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E1700.8090206@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:4482 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752316AbZAZUQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:16:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <497E1700.8090206@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Alan Cox , bzolnier@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, gdu@mns.spb.ru Hello, I wrote: >>>>>> + if (id[ATA_ID_MAJOR_VER] == 0xFFFF) >>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>> + return (id[ATA_ID_MAJOR_VER] & (1 << v)) ? 1 : 0; >>>>> Refer to afa_dev_cf_sata() on how it's done in really optimal way. >>>> To what ? - there is no ata or afa_dev_cf_sata ? >>> Very funny. Meant to be ata_dev_is_sata(), of course. >> We don't have one of those either - do you mean ata_id_is_sata ? Sure I have, just got used to its original name, ide_dev_is_sata(). >> If so then yes that looks like it might be slightly cleaner although its >> probably one instruction difference from the .s files. > That extra *if* cost more than instruction I think. At least 2 on x86. >> I'll redo it that way > OK, just leave ata_dev_is_cfa() alone and rename the patch. Just reposted my patch with better description. MBR, Sergei