linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IB/mlx4: silence GCC warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL1RGDWVAYCTNOOA+s_n5Pu7JgrR-6K+krcbSuARtEhgze_nqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:54:12 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
To:	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IB/mlx4: silence GCC warning

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Jack Morgenstein
<jackm@....mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> However, this approach does add the line below to processing for an IB port (ETH/RoCE port stays same, more or less).
> Processing time is therefore increased (at least on the IB side) relative to just living with the warning.
>
> Roland?

I'm finally noticing that this is in the build_mlx_header() function,
which is pretty much a slow path.  Certainly another compare isn't
going to change performance given all the other stuff we do there.

Let me look at the patches that have gone by and see what the cleanest
way to handle this is.

 - R.
--
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/