[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF16C7D.1060608@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:19:57 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid extra calculation in ip_route_input_common
Please tell me if this patch is silly...
I really want to know the reason we need to use ^ and | instead of if and &&.
On 12/21/2011 01:12 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> If previous condition doesn't meet, the later check will be cancelled.
> So we don't need to do all the calculation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/route.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
> index f30112f..2872bfb 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
> @@ -2362,10 +2362,10 @@ int ip_route_input_common(struct sk_buff *skb, __be32 daddr, __be32 saddr,
>
> for (rth = rcu_dereference(rt_hash_table[hash].chain); rth;
> rth = rcu_dereference(rth->dst.rt_next)) {
> - if ((((__force u32)rth->rt_key_dst ^ (__force u32)daddr) |
And I also wonder whether I can use "rth->rt_key_dst == daddr" here or not...
Thanks & Regards,
Michael Wang
> - ((__force u32)rth->rt_key_src ^ (__force u32)saddr) |
> - (rth->rt_route_iif ^ iif) |
> - (rth->rt_key_tos ^ tos)) == 0 &&
> + if (((__force u32)rth->rt_key_dst ^ (__force u32)daddr) == 0 &&
> + ((__force u32)rth->rt_key_src ^ (__force u32)saddr) == 0 &&
> + rth->rt_route_iif == iif &&
> + rth->rt_key_tos == tos &&
> rth->rt_mark == skb->mark &&
> net_eq(dev_net(rth->dst.dev), net) &&
> !rt_is_expired(rth)) {
--
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