>> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
>> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
>
> by 'more efficient' you mean saving cpu cycles on 'bvec->bv_len != PAGE_SIZE'
> comparison in exception/error path?
Yes …
> ...
> check_strm:
>
On (12/14/15 07:58), SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[..]
> > keep it the way it is please.
>
> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
by 'more efficient' you mean saving cpu cycles on 'bvec->bv_len !=
On (12/14/15 07:58), SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[..]
> > keep it the way it is please.
>
> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
by 'more efficient' you mean saving cpu cycles on 'bvec->bv_len !=
>> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
>> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
>
> by 'more efficient' you mean saving cpu cycles on 'bvec->bv_len != PAGE_SIZE'
> comparison in exception/error path?
Yes …
> ...
> check_strm:
>
> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
Exception handling is by definition exceptional, and thus its efficiency
is rarely important. What is important is that it should be correct, and
ideally
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> index 47915d7..69d7fcd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> @@ -652,9 +652,9 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct
>> bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>>
On (12/11/15 19:24), SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 47915d7..69d7fcd 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -652,9 +652,9 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram
On (12/11/15 19:24), SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 47915d7..69d7fcd 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -652,9 +652,9 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> index 47915d7..69d7fcd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> @@ -652,9 +652,9 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct
>> bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>>
> I suggest to make the affected exception handling a bit more efficient.
> Such source code fine-tuning has got a few special consequences.
Exception handling is by definition exceptional, and thus its efficiency
is rarely important. What is important is that it should be correct, and
ideally
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:20:59 +0100
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
A few checks could be repeated by the zram_bvec_write() function
at two places even if the passed variables contained a null pointer.
* This implementation detail could be
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:20:59 +0100
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
A few checks could be repeated by the zram_bvec_write() function
at two places even if the passed variables contained a null pointer.
* This
12 matches
Mail list logo