netdev - RE: [PATCH/RFC net-next] rocker: remove rocker parameter from functions that have rocker

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CB417A2@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 09:18:31 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Simon Horman' <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH/RFC net-next] rocker: remove rocker parameter from
 functions that have rocker_port parameter

From: Simon Horman
> Sent: 28 May 2015 04:23
> The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from
> the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when
> the latter is being passed anyway.

If the arguments are passed in registers (they almost certainly are)
or the function is inlined (possible since they are static) and
the calling code already has both values in registers then
passing both values saves a memory read inside the called code.

So on 'hot paths' it probably makes sense to pass both values.

	David

--
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