From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:17:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:17:04 -0400 Received: from maile.telia.com ([194.22.190.16]:27116 "EHLO maile.telia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:17:03 -0400 To: Greg KH Cc: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-usb-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: What to do with all of the USB UHCI drivers in the kernel? In-Reply-To: <20020520223132.GC25541@kroah.com> From: Peter Osterlund Date: 23 May 2002 20:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH writes: > Let me (and the linux-usb-devel list) know about any thoughts you have > pertaining to liking one of the drivers over the other one. Speed > tests, size tests, code pretty tests, comment spelling tests, > documentation tests, you name it, I want to know about it. If you > don't want your comments to be public, send them to me directly and I > will not let anyone else know what you said, but will use the info to > try to pick which one should stay. I did a simple test reading a bunch of files from a Freecom CDRW drive. usb-uhci-hcd 17840 0 (unused) pengo:/cdrw$ time wc petero/mp3/madonna/* ... 188462 1091976 50386286 total real 1m24.930s user 0m10.440s sys 0m1.360s uhci-hcd 24608 0 (unused) pengo:/cdrw$ time wc petero/mp3/madonna/* ... 188462 1091976 50386286 total real 1m33.095s user 0m12.670s sys 0m11.870s So the usb-uhci-hcd driver is 27% smaller, gives a 10% higher transfer rate and produces less system load during the data transfers. (About 70% idle time versus 50% idle time on my 233MHz MMX system.) -- Peter Osterlund - petero2@telia.com http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340