public inbox for linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Eli Cohen <eli-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux RDMA list
	<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Eli Cohen <eli-VPRAkNaXOzVS1MOuV/RT9w@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: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:03:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaiqekh7eg.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091011100015.GB4929@mtls03> (Eli Cohen's message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:00:15 +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?

 > True, (halign > 64) is the same and is cleaner. As for the unlikely()
 > -- well it's already been there and besides, we're never sure if it
 > will improve anything so the same question could be asked for other
 > places in the code.

I was just wondering in this case where you are just assigning the
boolean value of the expression to a variable how unlikely affects
things.  I can understand for conditional jumps how the compiler can
choose to make the likely case more efficient, but when there are no
jumps then I was just curious how the hint could help.

 > > 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?

 > We must initialize blh since it is used for any send request and not
 > just LSO opcodes. 

So then this patch was buggy because blh was not reinitialized as we
loop through multiple work requests?  eg an LSO request followed by a
non-LSO request?

Anyway I'll look over the newer patch.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-12 17:03 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
     [not found]   ` <adaocoiombn.fsf-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-11 10:00     ` Eli Cohen
2009-10-12 17:03       ` Roland Dreier [this message]
     [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=adaiqekh7eg.fsf@cisco.com \
    --to=rdreier-fyb4gu1cfyuavxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=eli-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox