linux-kernel - Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register

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: <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:59:50 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts()
 after error detection

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 20:56 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Is it a bit more efficient to avoid a double check for the
> > > variable "ret" at the end of the current implementation for the
> > > discussed function?
> > 
> > Before asking questions you could answer yourself,
> > please look at object code produced by the compiler
> > before and after your proposed changes.
> 
> * Do any more source code reviewers wonder about the need
>   for such a double check?

Given the feedback you've already received,
it seems so.

> * Which object code representations would you find representative
>   for a further constructive discussion around this
>   software component?

Evidence of actual object code improvement when
with compiled with optimizations.