Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> Then you'd also duplicate a lot of other, common, and quite hairy code.
>
> Which should then be put into functional subunits?
Most of them would be just one or two lines, and probably harder to
understand than the original code. Also, they all share a few common
variables (e.g. dma_wr, size), so you'd end up with a comparably fat
interface and/or you'd give gcc's ability to merge common expressions
in inlined functions a pretty good test.
> I already spent a couple of years (back a couple of years) retrofitting
> atm codes into 2.0.*! I know.
Oh, I didn't expect it to be _that_ bad :-(
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH werner.almesberger@ica.epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:33 EST