From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.212.195]:44236 "EHLO mail-vw0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752835AbZIKLfT (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:35:19 -0400 Received: by vws33 with SMTP id 33so653045vws.33 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <43e72e890909110023k62a512bejd712a3449cc8328d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1252632895-11914-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1252632895-11914-4-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <40f31dec0909102316q7902098jbee7fd8d17c3f622@mail.gmail.com> <4AA9F22C.3090007@gmail.com> <43e72e890909110023k62a512bejd712a3449cc8328d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:35:22 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ath5k: define ath_common ops From: Bob Copeland To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Jiri Slaby , Nick Kossifidis , devel@linuxdriverproject.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > ath9k/ath9k/ath9k_htc. But -- is there really is a measurable cost > penalty? > > This is why I asked if someone can test and give measurable > differences over this. If there really isn't then that's not strong > point against it. Honestly, it probably won't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I think if you are proposing a patch that touches every hotpath in two drivers, then you need to do the work to say "by the way, this has benefit X which outweighs the very small (or absent) performance regression Y, and here are the numbers. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com