On Thu, 15 May 2003, James Simmons wrote:
> > What about getting rid of one-char putc, implementing it in terms of
> > putcs? I'm doing it in matroxfb patches, and nobody complained yet, and
> > with current length of {fbcon,accel}_putc{s,} I was not able to find
> > measurable speed difference between putc and putc through putcs variants.
>
> Hm. I compressed all the image drawing functions into accel_putcs which is
> used in many places. I then placed accel_putc() into fbcon_putc(). I could
> have accel_putcs() called in fbcon_putc(). The advantage is smaller
> amount of code. The offset is a big more overhead plus a function call.
> What do people think here?
putc() is almost never called, IIRC. We did our best to combine as much data as
possible and call putcs().
A quick grep showed ->con_putc() is called only in drivers/char/vt.c for:
- Complementing the pointer position (for gpm)
- Inserting/deleting single characters
- Softcursor
I guess the small overhead won't have much influence here.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.orgIn personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:23 EST