On 27/01/2021 18:31, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 03:48:10PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 16/01/2021 05:18, Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>
> Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> Would it even be bett
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 03:48:10PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 16/01/2021 05:18, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >
> >>> Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> >>> Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
> >>> Even g
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 04:28:38PM +, David Laight wrote:
> I'd definitely leave the type as a bitmap.
What the hell for? Microoptimizations in places where we have
much heavier stuff to be done are bloody pointless.
It's already overcomplicated. And compiler is _not_ going to
be able to p
From: Pavel Begunkov
> Sent: 27 January 2021 15:48
>
> On 16/01/2021 05:18, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >
> >>> Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> >>> Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
> >>> Even growing the
On 16/01/2021 05:18, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>
>>> Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
>>> Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
>>> Even growing the on-stack structure by a word won't really matter.
>>
>> u8 type,
From: Al Viro
> Sent: 16 January 2021 05:18
>
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>
> > > Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> > > Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
> > > Even growing the on-stack structure by a word won't really matter
On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 10:11:09PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> > Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
> > Even growing the on-stack structure by a word won't really matter.
>
> u8 type, rw;
>
> That won't bloat the struct. I l
On 11/01/2021 09:35, David Laight wrote:
> From: Pavel Begunkov
>> Sent: 09 January 2021 22:11
>
>>> Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
>>> Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
>>> Even growing the on-stack structure by a word won't really matter.
>>
>> u8 type, rw;
From: Pavel Begunkov
> Sent: 09 January 2021 22:11
> > Does any code actually look at the fields as a pair?
> > Would it even be better to use separate bytes?
> > Even growing the on-stack structure by a word won't really matter.
>
> u8 type, rw;
>
> That won't bloat the struct. I like the i
On 09/01/2021 21:49, David Laight wrote:
> From: Al Viro
>> Sent: 09 January 2021 17:04
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 04:09:08PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2020 16:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*()
From: Al Viro
> Sent: 09 January 2021 17:04
>
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 04:09:08PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > On 06/12/2020 16:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > > On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > >> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
> > >> equality, b
On 09/01/2021 17:03, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 04:09:08PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 06/12/2020 16:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
equality, but all iterate_* h
On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 04:09:08PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 06/12/2020 16:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
> >> equality, but all iterate_* helpers do bitwise ands. This confuses
>
On 06/12/2020 16:01, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
>> equality, but all iterate_* helpers do bitwise ands. This confuses
>> compilers, so even if some cases were handled separately with
>> iov_i
On 21/11/2020 14:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
> equality, but all iterate_* helpers do bitwise ands. This confuses
> compilers, so even if some cases were handled separately with
> iov_iter_is_*(), corresponding ifs in iterate*() right
The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
equality, but all iterate_* helpers do bitwise ands. This confuses
compilers, so even if some cases were handled separately with
iov_iter_is_*(), corresponding ifs in iterate*() right after are not
eliminated.
E.g. iov_iter_npages()
16 matches
Mail list logo