From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5457BE20.5020205@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:40:48 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103162528.GT6890@mwanda> <5457B268.3020202@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Ursula Braun , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Frank Blaschka , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle List-ID: > If you can benchmark the code and the new code is faster then, yes, this > patch is good and we will apply it. I guess that I do not have enough resources myself to measure different run time effects in a S390 environment. > If you have no benchmarks then do not send the patch. Are other software developers and testers eventually interested to try a few pointer check adjustments out a bit more? Regards, Markus