From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:51:54 +0000 Subject: Re: drm/i915/gvt: Use common error handling code in shadow_workload_ring_buffer() Message-Id: List-Id: References: <87efpsiu7r.fsf@intel.com> <636f6272-9074-53dc-2c90-cbb4a7cd0901@users.sourceforge.net> <1A433E6A-DE06-4407-9E33-3CBBA4ADF01B@gmail.com> <20171024142615.t3y5atz6nulkq55h@mwanda> <1508856148.1955.12.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1508856148.1955.12.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Joe Perches , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Garry Hurley , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Dan Carpenter , Rodrigo Vivi >> =E2=80=A6 It's just that two out of three error >> messages happened to be the same and Markus wants to save a bit of >> memory by using the same string. The memory savings is not so big that >> it's worth making the code less readable. >=20 > I agree with Dan. >=20 > It doesn't save any real memory either as the compiler/linker > reuses the repeated string. It might depend on passing appropriate parameters. > It might, depending on the compiler, save a few bytes of > object code as the compiler may not optimize the repeated > call away though. I am trying to show corresponding change possibilities. > But a good compiler could do that too. Do you prefer to delegate the proposed software refactoring only to a corresponding optimiser? 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