Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <229c169ccf8fdbf7fc826901982f1f15e86f3d17.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/11] udp/ipv6: refactor udpv6_sendmsg udplite
 checks
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:09:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <33dfdf2119c86e35062f783d405bedec2fde2b4c.1651071843.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1651071843.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
         <33dfdf2119c86e35062f783d405bedec2fde2b4c.1651071843.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 11:56 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> Don't save a IS_UDPLITE() result in advance but do when it's really
> needed, so it doesn't store/load it from the stack. Same for resolving
> the getfrag callback pointer.

It's quite unclear to me if this change brings really any performance
benefit. The end results will depend a lot on the optimization
performed by the compiler, and IMHO the code looks better before this
modifications.

Paolo