On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Valient Gough <vgo...@pobox.com> wrote: >> @@ -628,7 +768,8 @@ static int capwap_frag_match(struct inet_frag_queue >> *ifq, void *a_) >> struct frag_match *a = a_; >> struct frag_match *b = &ifq_cast(ifq)->match; >> >> - return a->id == b->id && a->saddr == b->saddr && a->daddr == >> b->daddr; >> + return a->id == b->id && a->saddr == b->saddr && >> + a->daddr == b->daddr && a->key == b->key; > > Might as well use memcmp() here now that the struct won't have any > extra padding in it.
Does memcmp() actually perform better? A generic implementation, at least, might perform worse because it cannot assume that its arguments are well aligned. I don't know whether GCC is smarter than that (my past experience is that it is not). -- "I don't normally do acked-by's. I think it's my way of avoiding getting blamed when it all blows up." Andrew Morton _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
