From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [85.21.88.6]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95835DE07E for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:07:02 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:09:57 +0300 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] "NAND on UPM" and related patches Message-ID: <20071213140957.GA25401@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071210204705.GA31263@localhost.localdomain> <20071212164035.GB4329@loki.buserror.net> <20071212165513.GA30981@localhost.localdomain> <47601245.2090907@freescale.com> <20071212205838.GA16425@localhost.localdomain> <47604D6E.1050200@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 In-Reply-To: <47604D6E.1050200@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:06:54PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: [...] > >Given that, personally I'd want to lockless variant to stay. > > > >So, you still want to get rid of it? > > Yes, in the absence of benchmarking that shows it makes a real > difference. Benchmarking shows no difference in throughput between lock and lockless variants. This is expected of course, flashes are slow, so I can't really benchmark anything with it. > Premature optimization being the root of all evil, and what > not. ;-) Will remove it, thanks! -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbou@mail.ru backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2