From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752719AbcAGT76 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:59:58 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0230.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.230]:37179 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750768AbcAGT74 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:59:56 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1042:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3871:3872:3873:4321:5007:6261:7903:8527:10004:10400:10450:10455:10848:11658:11914:12114:12517:12519:12740:13069:13255:13311:13357:13894:14035:14659:19904:19999:21080:21324:30006:30012:30054:30070:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: spark79_73835954e712d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2006 Message-ID: <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts() after error detection From: Joe Perches To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Robert Richter , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sunil Goutham , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:59:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5685A273.6070607@users.sourceforge.net> <20160107110701.GE25086@rric.localdomain> <568EBCE7.4060502@users.sourceforge.net> <1452195846.4028.24.camel@perches.com> <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.3-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 20:56 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Is it a bit more efficient to avoid a double check for the > > > variable "ret" at the end of the current implementation for the > > > discussed function? > > > > Before asking questions you could answer yourself, > > please look at object code produced by the compiler > > before and after your proposed changes. > > * Do any more source code reviewers wonder about the need >   for such a double check? Given the feedback you've already received, it seems so. > * Which object code representations would you find representative >   for a further constructive discussion around this >   software component? Evidence of actual object code improvement when with compiled with optimizations.