From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: xiaosuo@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, harvey.harrison@gmail.com,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ppp: use {get,put}_unaligned_be{16,32}
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:04:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D2836BB.6000600@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110107.171534.193718114.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:43:01 +0800
>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:37:36AM +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> This patch description is inadequate. It should tell us why you are
>>> making this change. Does it result in smaller and/or faster code, and
>>> if so by how much on what sort of machine? Do you think it makes the
>>> code clearer? (I don't.) Or is there some other motivation for this?
>>>
>>
>> Good designed APIs always make code clearer, smaller and faster. It is
>> obvious enough I think.
>
> I have to say that every time I go read the header parsing code in the
> PPP driver, I absolutely regret it.
>
> And Changli's patch fixes some of the readability problems.
Just for the record: I agree with Paul that current code is more readable.
This code still requires thinking about specific bytes and the patch mixes
it only with word access.
Jarek P.
> @@ -395,16 +396,14 @@ mppe_compress(void *arg, unsigned char *ibuf, unsigned char *obuf,
> */
> obuf[0] = PPP_ADDRESS(ibuf);
> obuf[1] = PPP_CONTROL(ibuf);
> - obuf[2] = PPP_COMP >> 8; /* isize + MPPE_OVHD + 1 */
> - obuf[3] = PPP_COMP; /* isize + MPPE_OVHD + 2 */
> + put_unaligned_be16(PPP_COMP, obuf + 2);
> obuf += PPP_HDRLEN;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: xiaosuo@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, harvey.harrison@gmail.com,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ppp: use {get,put}_unaligned_be{16,32}
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:04:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D2836BB.6000600@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110107.171534.193718114.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:43:01 +0800
>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:37:36AM +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> This patch description is inadequate. It should tell us why you are
>>> making this change. Does it result in smaller and/or faster code, and
>>> if so by how much on what sort of machine? Do you think it makes the
>>> code clearer? (I don't.) Or is there some other motivation for this?
>>>
>>
>> Good designed APIs always make code clearer, smaller and faster. It is
>> obvious enough I think.
>
> I have to say that every time I go read the header parsing code in the
> PPP driver, I absolutely regret it.
>
> And Changli's patch fixes some of the readability problems.
Just for the record: I agree with Paul that current code is more readable.
This code still requires thinking about specific bytes and the patch mixes
it only with word access.
Jarek P.
> @@ -395,16 +396,14 @@ mppe_compress(void *arg, unsigned char *ibuf, unsigned char *obuf,
> */
> obuf[0] = PPP_ADDRESS(ibuf);
> obuf[1] = PPP_CONTROL(ibuf);
> - obuf[2] = PPP_COMP >> 8; /* isize + MPPE_OVHD + 1 */
> - obuf[3] = PPP_COMP; /* isize + MPPE_OVHD + 2 */
> + put_unaligned_be16(PPP_COMP, obuf + 2);
> obuf += PPP_HDRLEN;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-08 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-06 23:37 [PATCH v2] net: ppp: use {get,put}_unaligned_be{16,32} Changli Gao
2011-01-06 23:37 ` Changli Gao
2011-01-06 23:42 ` Harvey Harrison
2011-01-06 23:42 ` Harvey Harrison
2011-01-07 3:01 ` Paul Mackerras
2011-01-07 3:01 ` Paul Mackerras
2011-01-08 0:43 ` Changli Gao
2011-01-08 0:43 ` Changli Gao
2011-01-08 1:15 ` David Miller
2011-01-08 1:15 ` David Miller
2011-01-08 3:13 ` Paul Mackerras
2011-01-08 3:13 ` Paul Mackerras
2011-01-08 4:37 ` David Miller
2011-01-08 4:37 ` David Miller
2011-01-08 10:04 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2011-01-08 10:04 ` Jarek Poplawski
2011-01-08 10:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-01-08 10:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-01-08 10:33 ` Jarek Poplawski
2011-01-08 10:33 ` Jarek Poplawski
2011-01-11 0:13 ` David Miller
2011-01-11 0:13 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D2836BB.6000600@gmail.com \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=xiaosuo@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.