From: Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Eli Cohen <eli-VPRAkNaXOzVS1MOuV/RT9w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux RDMA list
<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
ewg <ewg-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org>,
general-list
<general-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlx4: remove limitation on LSO header size
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:45:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaocoiombn.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090930090701.GA2385@mtls03> (Eli Cohen's message of "Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:07:01 +0200")
> + *blh = unlikely(halign > 64) ? 1 : 0;
This idiom of "(boolean condition) ? 1 : 0" looks odd to me... doesn't
(halign > 64) already evaluate to 1 or 0 anyway? Does the unlikely()
actually affect code generation here?
With that said, see below...
> + int blh = 0;
I assume this initialization is to avoid a compiler warning. But the
code is actually correct without initializing blh -- so I think that we
save a tiny bit of code by doing uninitialized_var() instead?
> + (blh ? cpu_to_be32(1 << 6) : 0);
...given that the only use of blh is as a flag to decide what constant
to use here, does it generate better code to make blh be __be32 and set
the value directly in build_lso_seg, ie do:
*blh = unlikely(halign > 64) ? cpu_to_be32(1 << 6) : 0;
and then use blh without ?: in mlx4_ib_post_send...
- R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-07 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-30 9:07 [PATCH] mlx4: remove limitation on LSO header size Eli Cohen
2009-10-07 22:45 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
[not found] ` <adaocoiombn.fsf-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-11 10:00 ` Eli Cohen
2009-10-12 17:03 ` Roland Dreier
[not found] ` <4AC858E0.2010506@voltaire.com>
[not found] ` <4AC858E0.2010506-smomgflXvOZWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-11 9:47 ` [ewg] " Eli Cohen
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=adaocoiombn.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier-fyb4gu1cfyuavxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=eli-VPRAkNaXOzVS1MOuV/RT9w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ewg-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org \
--cc=general-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
/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.