[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308604618.2701.189.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:16:58 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH 7/9] ethtool: prepare for larger netdev_features_t
type
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 21:14 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
[...]
> @@ -125,19 +131,26 @@ static int ethtool_set_features(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr)
> if (copy_from_user(features, useraddr, sizeof(features)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> - if (features[0].valid & ~NETIF_F_ETHTOOL_BITS)
> + /* I wonder if the compiler will be smart enough to loop-unroll
> + * and optimize this... (no worries if not) --mq */
> + for (i = ETHTOOL_DEV_FEATURE_WORDS; i-- > 0; ) {
> + valid = (valid << 32)|features[i].valid;
> + wanted = (wanted << 32)|features[i].requested;
> + }
[...]
I don't know (or care) about optimisation of this, but I would expect
gcc to complain about shifting a 32-bit value by 32 bits. I suggest you
write this as:
for (i = 0; i < ETHTOOL_DEV_FEATURE_WORDS; ++i) {
valid |= (netdev_features_t)features[i].valid << 32 *i;
wanted |= (netdev_features_t)features[i].requested << 32 *i;
}
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists