On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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 know but this isn't really a fast path anyways. Mostly it's just simpler. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
