Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030286AbVKCCtD (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:49:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030285AbVKCCtD (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:49:03 -0500 Received: from pop.ispwest.com ([216.52.245.18]:36108 "EHLO ispwest-email1.mdeinc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030274AbVKCCtC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:49:02 -0500 X-Modus-BlackList: 216.52.245.25=OK;kjak@ispwest.com=OK X-Modus-Trusted: 216.52.245.25=YES Message-ID: <3dd4936961ae4324937d19838bad898b.kjak@ispwest.com> X-EM-APIVersion: 2, 0, 1, 0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Reply-To: "Kris Katterjohn" From: "Kris Katterjohn" To: "Herbert Xu" CC: jschlst@samba.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, acme@ghostprotocols.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge __load_pointer() and load_pointer() in net/core/filter.c; kernel 2.6.14 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 18:48:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 38 Forgive me because this is one of my first attempts at anything related to the kernel, but... 1) How would I go about benchmarking this? 2) If the out-of-line code is executed anyway (since load_pointer() calls __load_pointer()), would it really effect it very much? I've been programming as a hobby for a few years, but I never really worried about inlining my code. Most likely because when I was learning C, I was using books etc. that were written before C99 was out. Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: Herbert Xu [mailto:herbert@gondor.apana.org.au] Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge __load_pointer() and load_pointer() in net/core/filter.c; kernel 2.6.14 > Kris Katterjohn wrote: > > I wasn't actually changing it to add performance, but to make the code look > > cleaner. The new load_pointer() is virtually the same as having the seperate > > functions that are currently there, but the code, I think, is "better looking". > > If you look at the current net/core/filter.c and then my patched version, the > > steps are done in the exact same order and same way, but all in that one > > function. > > You've just changed an out-of-line function (__load_pointer) into an > inlined function. There may be a cost to that. > -- > Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ > Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} > Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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/