k1, k2);
printf("compare2..\n");
for (i = 0; i < NUM_REP; i++)
flow_key_compare2(k1, k2);
printf((flow_key_compare(k1,k2)==(flow_key_compare2(k1,k2)?1:0))?"ok\n":"error\n");
return 0;
}
2007/1/1, D
);
printf(compare2..\n);
for (i = 0; i NUM_REP; i++)
flow_key_compare2(k1, k2);
printf((flow_key_compare(k1,k2)==(flow_key_compare2(k1,k2)?1:0))?ok\n:error\n);
return 0;
}
2007/1/1, Daniel Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello!
So you mean
ki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:37:05 +0100
> From: Daniel Marjamäki
> This has been tested by me.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please do not do this.
memcmp() cannot assume the alignment of the source and
destination buffers and thu
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0 +0100
@@ -144,29 +144,16 @@ typedef u32 flow_com
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0 +0100
@@ -144,29 +144,16 @@ typedef u32 flow_compare_t
]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:37:05 +0100
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please do not do this.
memcmp() cannot assume the alignment of the source and
destination buffers and thus will run more slowly than
that open-coded
Hello!
Thank you for your comments. It seems to me the issue was the readability.
It was my goal to improve the readability. I failed.
I personally prefer to use standard functions instead of writing code.
In my opinion using standard functions means less code that is easier to read.
Best
Hello all!
I sent a patch with this content:
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_PIRQS; i++)
- pirq_entries[i] = -1;
+ memset(pirq_entries, -1, sizeof(pirq_entries));
I'd like to know if you have any comments to this change. It was of
course my intention to make the code shorter,
Hello!
Thank you for your comments. It seems to me the issue was the readability.
It was my goal to improve the readability. I failed.
I personally prefer to use standard functions instead of writing code.
In my opinion using standard functions means less code that is easier to read.
Best
Hello all!
I sent a patch with this content:
- for (i = 0; i MAX_PIRQS; i++)
- pirq_entries[i] = -1;
+ memset(pirq_entries, -1, sizeof(pirq_entries));
I'd like to know if you have any comments to this change. It was of
course my intention to make the code shorter,
10 matches
Mail list logo
