On Aug 26, 2008, at 10:40 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:

quoted text
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 14:27 -0700, Bruce Leonard wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Inline function for determining the size of the MTD device,  
>> independant
>> + * of old or new way of doing things.
>> + *
>> + */
>> +static inline u_int64_t device_size(struct mtd_info *a)
>> +{
>> +	return a->num_eraseblocks == 0 ? a->size : a->num_eraseblocks * a- 
>> >erasesize;
>> +}
>
> I do not think it is a good idea to do multiplication every time we  
> need
> MTD device size. It is unnecessarily large overhead in terms of speed
> and code size.
>
> Did you consider a possibility of just making mtd->size 64 bit?

I did consider making size 64-bit, but it seemed less intrusive to go  
the direction I did.  I wanted to change as little code as possible  
but at the same time make it obvious there was a fundamental change.   
There's also a desire to move more in the direction of a BIO-like  
aspect to the MTD layer and some of the suggestions I got early made  
it seem that this would make that future move easier.

quoted text
>
> Or using eraseblock:offset pairs instead of absolute address?

I didn't really see how I could convey the idea of size using  
eraseblock:offset.

Bruce


--
unsubscribe notice
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/