[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029143838.GC25226@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:38:38 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: pang.xunlei@....com.cn
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idr: optimize ida_init() to avoid an extra memset
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:26:34PM +0800, pang.xunlei@....com.cn wrote:
> The memset in ida_init() already handles idr, so there's some
> redundancy in the following idr_init().
>
> This patch removes the memset, and clears ida->free_bitmap instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: pang.xunlei <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>
> ---
> lib/idr.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/idr.c b/lib/idr.c
> index e654aeb..bbe5779 100644
> --- a/lib/idr.c
> +++ b/lib/idr.c
> @@ -1141,8 +1141,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ida_simple_remove);
> */
> void ida_init(struct ida *ida)
> {
> - memset(ida, 0, sizeof(struct ida));
> idr_init(&ida->idr);
> -
> + ida->free_bitmap = NULL;
I don't know. Does this matter? If this *really* matters, I'd much
rather have memset(&ida->FIRST_FIELD, 0, sizeof(struct ida) - offset
of FIRST_FIELD) to ensure that all fields get reset or implement an
internal function like __idr_init_without_zeroing(); however, given
the size of an idr and the low frequency of the operation, I'd prefer
to just leave it as-is.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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