From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932981AbXABIc7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 03:32:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932980AbXABIc7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 03:32:59 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([62.242.22.158]:16257 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932975AbXABIc7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 03:32:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 09:32:56 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: yc_zhou Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19] Adding branch to remove possible unnecessary inst Message-ID: <20070102083255.GP2483@kernel.dk> References: <459752B6.1020904@ncic.ac.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <459752B6.1020904@ncic.ac.cn> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 31 2006, yc_zhou wrote: > Function blk_queue_bounce_limit using dma flag to determine whether > assigned a certain value for member of request_queue_t. But the > assignment is unconditionally after the flag is set. It introduce > possible unnecessary instructions. Your patch is white space damaged, it makes it hard to read and impossible to apply. Note that blk_queue_bounce_limit() is an initialization function, so not much gained from optimizing on that. -- Jens Axboe