From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 06:28:13 +0000 Subject: Re: sparc: bpf_jit: Move four assignments in bpf_jit_compile() Message-Id: <193016ad-1b0d-50f1-44b8-ee34dbc2924b@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <2179bf7c-9878-adf7-da97-2746d5aa3d34@users.sourceforge.net> <1af7e987-0233-f972-6c00-6d5e00898188@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Julian Calaby Cc: sparclinux , Adam Buchbinder , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , "David S. Miller" , Rabin Vincent , LKML , kernel-janitors , Julia Lawall , Paolo Bonzini >> Which test environments would you find acceptable for further clarificat= ion? >=20 > Compiling it on GCC for Sparc, obviously. Are there any more configuration details to consider? >>> I must also point out that these sorts of optimisations are things the >>> compiler does automatically when compiling this code. >> >> Do you take this detail for granted? >=20 > I trust that the GCC developers have done their work well. Will any more compiler implementations matter here? Do you like software which can run better by default also without applicati= on of special compilation parameters? > I'm looking for some glimmer of usefullness in this patch. I'm not seeing= any. Thanks for your honest feedback. >> Should we avoid to compare software things similar to "apples" and "oran= ges" >> (while these fruits can make more fun)? ;-) >=20 > Write a benchmark that exercises this function. Measure the time it > took without this change, measure the time it took with this change, > is there a difference. Is an accepted test system already available for the purpose that every com= mit would be checked in the way automatically you expect here? > You cannot expect people to take you seriously if you're proposing > performance changes without any actual ability or interest in > producing performance related data to go along with them. I suggested small changes which I found "logical". > You're essentially saying "I think doing things this way is better" Yes =E2=80=A6 > and providing _nothing_ else. You might be looking for more information than I can practically give you at the moment. > I think that things are perfectly fine the way they are. I have got an other impression for "perfection" in this software module. I found an implementation detail for further considerations. > Convince me with data or something else. I imagine that the "else" can become harder than you find reasonable. > Did someone do this to some other driver and you're applying the same fix= elsewhere? Is a similar software development discussion still running for other module= s? > You are the only person proposing changes like these ones as you are I am picking special software improvement opportunities up. > (as far as I know) the only person who thinks they have any value. I can accept that the value of specific changes will usually be categorised as lower than updates that you prefer so far. Regards, Markus -- 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