Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:3576 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752645AbaBZRaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:30:19 -0500 From: Kalle Valo To: Michal Kazior CC: Janusz Dziedzic , linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: improve rx path when play with attention flags References: <1393312414-9404-1-git-send-email-janusz.dziedzic@tieto.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:29:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Michal Kazior's message of "Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:24:49 +0100") Message-ID: <871typlr3e.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20140226_183024_517324_C03A01FA) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michal Kazior writes: > On 25 February 2014 08:13, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: >> Currently when we check attention flags we do __le32_to_cpu() >> four times for each packet. This could have performance >> impact for BIG endian platforms. This patch improve this >> little bit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janusz Dziedzic [...] >> @@ -929,6 +873,9 @@ static void ath10k_htt_rx_handler(struct ath10k_htt *htt, >> struct sk_buff *msdu_head, *msdu_tail; >> enum htt_rx_mpdu_status status; >> int msdu_chaining; >> + struct htt_rx_desc *rxd; >> + u32 att_flags; >> + > > No need for an empty line I suppose? I would also prefer `attention` > instead of `att_flags`, but no big deal. Yeah, attention is better. And also the variable declarations should be in the beginning of function. Apparently I have been sloppy missed that here. -- Kalle Valo