Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:53:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:53:10 -0500 Received: from mailhost.nmt.edu ([129.138.4.52]:9998 "EHLO mailhost.nmt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:53:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:02:00 -0700 From: Val Henson To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? Message-ID: <20030113220200.GD19731@boardwalk> References: <1042400094.1208.26.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030112211530.GP27709@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <1042406849.3162.121.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1042406849.3162.121.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Favorite-Color: Polka dot Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:27:30PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > I've only compiled (and haven't tested this code), but it should be much > faster than the original code. Why? Because we're eliminating an extra > "jump" in several places in the code every time open would be called. > Yes, it's more code, so the kernel is a little bigger, but it should be > faster at the same time, and memory should be less of an issue nowadays. To the tune of "Teen Angst" from Cracker: Cause, what the world needs now, is another theoretical optimizer like I need a hole in my head. You'd think I'd be resigned to the l-k tradition of the unbenchmarked "optimization" patch, but apparently not yet... -VAL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/