no

the reason this patch was rejected initially is because va_args
processing is very expensive especially when coupled with another
function call 100k times per second.

Keep it the way it is please.

Regards
-steve

On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 11:35 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> Even better than mine.. ACK. please commit to svn.
> 
> thanks
> Fabio
> 
> On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 11:30 +0200, Jan Friesse wrote:
> > My version of patch.
> > 
> > Regards,
> >   Honza
> > 
> > Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > this duplicate code was giving me a fit every single time I was looking
> > > at it.
> > > 
> > > Make it common, static and shared between the only two callers.
> > > 
> > > At the first look this might look like a performance hit because we move
> > > the log_level check after the va operations but truth is that the check
> > > should not be there at all. It will have to be removed once log_rec is
> > > able to perform as we expect to record everything. At this point in time
> > > the check is only a workaround to make everything work.
> > > 
> > > Fabio
> > > 
> > > PS also remove the Makefile.am check since now the 2 callers are very
> > > small and close to each other.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Openais mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openais mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais

_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais

Reply via email to