Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Avoid redundant address overlap tests in memcpy().

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 1/22/22 17:58, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> -void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
> +void *____memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
>   {
>   	unsigned char *d = dest;
>   	const unsigned char *s = src;
>   
> -	if (d <= s || d - s >= n)
> -		return ____memcpy(dest, src, n);
> -
>   	while (n-- > 0)
>   		d[n] = s[n];
>   
>   	return dest;
>   }

The ___ naming is pretty cruel.  Could we call it memmove_no_overlap() 
or memmove_unsafe()?  Surely we can put some *useful* bytes in the name 
rather than padding it out with _'s.  No need to perpetuate the 
____memcpy() naming.

Also, is this worth the churn?  It probably saves less than 10 
instructions, all of which are ridiculously cheap.  Is there a *reason* 
for this other than being a pure cleanup?