[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906291033140.30244@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receive
callbacks
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I think Oleg already said this, but you can use directly poll_wait()
> > without adding another abstraction, and the compiler will drop the double
> > check for you:
>
> I think Oleg told about cosmetics and let Jiri to choose. I'd only
> add it's not mainly about optimization, but easy showing the main
> difference, of course depending on taste.
We already have a universally used function to do that, and that's
poll_wait().
That code (adding an extra __poll_wait()) was entirely about
optimizations (otherwise why not use the existing poll_wait()?), so if
the optimization does not actually take place, IMO it's better to not add
an extra API.
- Davide
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists