On 2013/12/24 1:20, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On 12/22/2013 09:09 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Use the recently added and possibly more efficient >> ether_addr_equal_unaligned to instead of memcmp. >> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> >> Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianh...@huawei.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/3com/3c509.c | 3 +-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_sp.c | 10 ++++------ >> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_sriov.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_vfpf.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb3/cxgb3_offload.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb3/l2t.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/cisco/enic/enic_pp.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/emulex/benet/be_main.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igbvf/netdev.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_sriov.c | 3 +-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/micrel/ksz884x.c | 9 ++++----- >> drivers/net/ethernet/neterion/vxge/vxge-main.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/packetengines/yellowfin.c | 8 ++------ >> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_hw.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_io.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_main.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/seeq/sgiseeq.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.c | 2 +- >> drivers/net/fddi/skfp/fplustm.c | 3 ++- >> drivers/net/plip/plip.c | 2 +- >> net/caif/cfrfml.c | 2 +- >> 27 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > What is it you are trying to optimize for, size or speed? Most of these > calls are in slow path. Replacing the memcmp with an inline operation > may provide little to no gain in terms of speed and in many cases as you > might actually be increasing the resultant driver size. > > Also I would recommend reviewing the addresses you are comparing. It is > likely that you could use ether_addr_equal or compare_ether_addr in many > cases as I suspect a number of spots are using 16b aligned MAC addresses > for both operands. > > Thanks, > > Alex > > .
Yes, as the title said, slight optimization, and I think there will be no negative effect for these places. The patchset still have many problem, many places should use the ether_addr_equal as you said, I will fix it later. Thank you for reviewing the patch. Regards Ding > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
