Return-path: Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:32982 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752026AbaAQVYM (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:24:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:24:10 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Julia Lawall Cc: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] use ether_addr_equal_64bits Message-ID: <20140117212410.GA13930@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> (sfid-20140117_222437_726126_E4120293) References: <1388427307-8691-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1388427307-8691-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon 2013-12-30 19:14:56, Julia Lawall wrote: > Ether_addr_equal_64bits is more efficient than ether_addr_equal, and can be > used when each argument is an array within a structure that contains at > least two bytes of data beyond the array. I mean, yes, it is probably faster, and yes, most structures probably contain two more bytes, but... is the uglyness worth the speedup? I'd say this should not be done except in very time-critical places... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html