From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts()
 after error detection
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:59:50 -0800
Message-ID: <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@cavium.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.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?
> >=20
> > Before asking questions you could answer yourself,
> > please look at object code produced by the compiler
> > before and after your proposed changes.
>=20
> * Do any more source code reviewers wonder about the need
> =A0 for such a double check?

Given the feedback you've already received,
it seems so.

> * Which object code representations would you find representative
> =A0 for a further constructive discussion around this
> =A0 software component?

Evidence of actual object code improvement when
with compiled with optimizations.