On 7/13/16 15:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 13-07-16 00:50:12, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> [...]
In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
different. After uses bool,
On 7/13/16 15:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 13-07-16 00:50:12, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> [...]
In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
different. After uses bool,
On Wed 13-07-16 00:50:12, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>
> On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
> >> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for
On Wed 13-07-16 00:50:12, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>
> On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
> >> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for
On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
> [...]
>> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
>> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
>> it should be a little better for catching.
>
> The
On 7/12/16 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
> [...]
>> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
>> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
>> it should be a little better for catching.
>
> The
On 7/12/16 15:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 09:47 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>
>> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
>> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
>> it should be a little better for catching.
>
> You
On 7/12/16 15:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 09:47 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>
>> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
>> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
>> it should be a little better for catching.
>
> You
On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
[...]
> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
> it should be a little better for catching.
The code generated for bool version looks much worse.
On Tue 12-07-16 03:47:42, Chen Gang wrote:
[...]
> In our case, the 2 output size are same, but under x86_64, the insns are
> different. After uses bool, it uses push/pop instead of branch, for me,
> it should be a little better for catching.
The code generated for bool version looks much worse.
On 07/11/2016 09:47 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 7/11/16 08:26, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
From: Chen Gang
For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
less than int.
And
On 07/11/2016 09:47 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 7/11/16 08:26, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
From: Chen Gang
For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
less than int.
And return boolean result directly,
On 7/11/16 08:26, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>> From: Chen Gang
>>
>> For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
>> less than int.
>>
>> And return boolean result directly,
On 7/11/16 08:26, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>> From: Chen Gang
>>
>> For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
>> less than int.
>>
>> And return boolean result directly, since 'if' statement is
On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
> From: Chen Gang
>
> For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
> less than int.
>
> And return boolean result directly, since 'if' statement is also for
> boolean
On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0800, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
> From: Chen Gang
>
> For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
> less than int.
>
> And return boolean result directly, since 'if' statement is also for
> boolean checking, and return
From: Chen Gang
For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
less than int.
And return boolean result directly, since 'if' statement is also for
boolean checking, and return boolean result, too.
Signed-off-by: Chen Gang
From: Chen Gang
For pure bool function's return value, bool is a little better more or
less than int.
And return boolean result directly, since 'if' statement is also for
boolean checking, and return boolean result, too.
Signed-off-by: Chen Gang
---
include/linux/migrate.h | 4 ++--
18 matches
Mail list logo