[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ec653df-9d73-3c94-9559-7a732417e578@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:37:19 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IB/hfi1: Adjust another size determination in
hfi1_user_sdma_alloc_queues()
>> How often does it really make sense to keep such a product in this local variable?
>
> It depends. Lets take it the other way round. If I this in a review I'd
> suggest the submitter to create a local variable for the multiplication
> to get rid of the line break. It's avoidable.
I imagine that there are further possibilities to improve the involved
programming for various arrays.
> And again, the compiler will optimize it away.
>
> Apart from the fact that you haven't tested your patch at all:
This is true in principle as I could compile the source code adjustment at least.
> jthumshirn@...ux-x5ow:linux (test)$ git am ~/\[PATCH\ 3_5\]\ IB_hfi1\:\
> Adjust\ another\ size\ determination\ in\
> hfi1_user_sdma_alloc_queues\(\).eml
> Applying: IB/hfi1: Adjust another size determination in
> hfi1_user_sdma_alloc_queues()
> jthumshirn@...ux-x5ow:linux (test)$ make
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/user_sdma.o CHK
> include/config/kernel.release
> CHK include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h
> CHK include/generated/utsrelease.h
> CHK include/generated/bounds.h
> CHK include/generated/timeconst.h
> CHK include/generated/asm-offsets.h
> CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> CC drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/user_sdma.o
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/user_sdma.c: In function
> ‘hfi1_user_sdma_alloc_queues’:
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/user_sdma.c:402:2: error: ‘memsize’
> undeclared (first use in this function)
> memsize = sizeof(*pq->reqs) * hfi1_sdma_comp_ring_size;
> ^
How do you think about to apply also the previous update step like “[PATCH 2/5] IB/hfi1:
Use kcalloc() in hfi1_user_sdma_alloc_queues()”?
> So to sum up: there is no evident improvement in the resulting binary
There might not be a remarkable difference with the default software build parameters.
> and you introduce a stylistic glitch (the new line break in a function call).
There are different opinions about this implementation detail, aren't there?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists