From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161400AbcFGROF (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:14:05 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0088.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.88]:54235 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412AbcFGROD (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:14:03 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2690:2828:2912:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:8603:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11783:11914:12050:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13311:13357:13439:13894:14659:21080,0,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:3,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: spoon87_5d2e0f283fd3d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1818 Message-ID: <1465319638.25087.29.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] lib/uuid.c: Silence an unchecked return value warning From: Joe Perches To: George Spelvin , andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Cc: bjorn@mork.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, rv@rasmusvillemoes.dk Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 10:13:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160607164302.27585.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> References: <20160607164302.27585.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 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 Tue, 2016-06-07 at 12:43 -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > To be sure it faster we need the measurements. Sometimes it's not > > obvious. [] > Speaking pedantically, you're right.  But as a practical matter, it's > very unlikely, and what makes it truly insignificant is that it's not > really a problem even if I'm wrong and the code *is* slower. > > As you said, size is more important than speed, and I did, at your > request, benchmark that.  I'm just trying to make the sort of changes > that improve *both*. > > If you have a realistic concern that the patches degrade speed, I can > put in a few hours of work to put the different versions into a test > harness and measure it accurately. > > But if this is just a pro forma observation that estimates aren't > perfectly reliable, it's not worth the effort. Readability and correctness are probably more important than runtime performance here.