From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:59:50 +0000 Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts() after error detection Message-Id: <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5685A273.6070607@users.sourceforge.net> <20160107110701.GE25086@rric.localdomain> <568EBCE7.4060502@users.sourceforge.net> <1452195846.4028.24.camel@perches.com> <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 20:56 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Is it a bit more efficient to avoid a double check for the > > > variable "ret" at the end of the current implementation for the > > > discussed function? > >=20 > > Before asking questions you could answer yourself, > > please look at object code produced by the compiler > > before and after your proposed changes. >=20 > * Do any more source code reviewers wonder about the need > =A0 for such a double check? Given the feedback you've already received, it seems so. > * Which object code representations would you find representative > =A0 for a further constructive discussion around this > =A0 software component? Evidence of actual object code improvement when with compiled with optimizations. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html