[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170325163712.GA4950@avx2>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 19:37:12 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "steffen.klassert@...unet.com" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: branchless addr4_match() on 64-bit
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 05:16:44PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alexey Dobriyan
> > Sent: 23 March 2017 23:33
> > Current addr4_match() code has special test for /0 prefixes because of
> > standard required undefined behaviour. However, it is possible to omit
> > it on 64-bit because shifting can be done in a 64-bit register and then
> > truncated to the expected value (which is 0 mask).
> >
> > Implicit truncation by htonl() fits nicely into R32-within-R64 model
> > on x86-64.
> ...
> > static inline bool addr4_match(__be32 a1, __be32 a2, u8 prefixlen)
> > {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > + /* L in UL is not a typo. */
> > + return !((a1 ^ a2) & htonl(~0UL << (32 - prefixlen)));
> > +#else
> > /* C99 6.5.7 (3): u32 << 32 is undefined behaviour */
> > if (prefixlen == 0)
> > return true;
> > return !((a1 ^ a2) & htonl(0xFFFFFFFFu << (32 - prefixlen)));
> > +#endif
>
> Can't this just be written:
>
> if (sizeof (long) == 4 && prefixlen == 0)
Indeed.
> return true;
> return !((a1 ^ a2) & htonl(0xFFFFFFFFUL << (32 - prefixlen)));
0xFFFFFFFFUL is really long movabs, ~0UL is better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists