From: Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Eli Cohen <eli-VPRAkNaXOzVS1MOuV/RT9w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux RDMA list
<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@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: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:45:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaocoiombn.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090930090701.GA2385@mtls03> (Eli Cohen's message of "Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:07:01 +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?
With that said, see below...
> + int blh = 0;
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?
> + (blh ? cpu_to_be32(1 << 6) : 0);
...given that the only use of blh is as a flag to decide what constant
to use here, does it generate better code to make blh be __be32 and set
the value directly in build_lso_seg, ie do:
*blh = unlikely(halign > 64) ? cpu_to_be32(1 << 6) : 0;
and then use blh without ?: in mlx4_ib_post_send...
- R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-07 22:45 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 [this message]
[not found] ` <adaocoiombn.fsf-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-11 10:00 ` Eli Cohen
2009-10-12 17:03 ` Roland Dreier
[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=adaocoiombn.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier-fyb4gu1cfyuavxtiumwx3w@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