From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: add buffered tx api
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:26:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5916803.8PiAMBcxJt@xps13>
References: <1452869038-9140-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <1964417.t7N6HDkJH0@xps13>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B1A627@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1809F2949
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2016 16:28:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n186so184169153wmn.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:28:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B1A627@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-03-09 15:23, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > 
> > 2016-03-09 13:36, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > +   if (to_send == 0)
> > > > > +           return 0;
> > > >
> > > > Why this check is done in the lib?
> > > > What is the performance gain if we are idle?
> > > > It can be done outside if needed.
> > >
> > > Yes, that could be done outside, but if user has to do it anyway,
> > > why not to put it inside?
> > > I don't expect any performance gain/loss because of that -
> > > just seems a bit more convenient to the user.
> > 
> > It is handling an idle case so there is no gain obviously.
> > But the condition branching is surely a loss.
> 
> I suppose that condition should always be checked:
> either in user code prior to function call or inside the
> function call itself.
> So don't expect any difference in performance here...
> Do you have any particular example when you think it would? 
> Or are you talking about rte_eth_tx_buffer() calling
> rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() internally?
> For that one - both are flush is 'static inline' , so I expect
> compiler be smart enough to remove this redundant check.  
> 
> > So why the user would you like to do this check?
> Just for user convenience - to save him doing that manually.

Probably I've missed something. If we remove this check, the function
will do nothing, right? How is it changing the behaviour?