From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amir Noam Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] [bonding 2.4] Add balance-xor-ip bonding mode Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:50:24 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200401111650.24305.amir.noam@intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Return-path: To: "Per Hedeland" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 08 January 2004 06:43 pm, Per Hedeland wrote: > Amir Noam wrote: > >I don't like this. The reason we give different tx function > > pointers to dev->hard_start_xmit in different bonding mode is to > > make the tx path as fast as possible. Otherwise we might as well > > use a single tx function that chooses its exact operation based > > on the bonding mode. > > > >It might be better to have some code duplication if it results in > >faster tx, but I'm not sure what's the optimal solution in this > > case. > > Well, I don't really have an opinion since I don't have a good idea > about the cost of a function call relative to "everything else" > that is happening here. I don't see a way to do "limited" > duplication without using function calls though, but I'm quite > happy to make it two entirely separate functions for MAC vs IP. > Please advise. A possible way to have "limited" duplication would be to have two seperate xmit functions, that call an inline function for the shared code. This might be good enough, performance-wise, while avoiding some code duplication. But, like I've said, I'm not sure wout the best solution is. I'd like to hear what Jay (and others) thinks about it. -- Amir