[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090629201733.GB3417@jolsa.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:17:33 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.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, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:30AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 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
>
>
my thinking was that both variants will endup in the same code anyway,
so it'd be probably better if the more readable (subjective) got in..
however I dont have any strong preffering feelings about either of those choices,
so I can convert easilly :)
jirka
--
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