On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:22:59AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > * Ted Unangst <[email protected]> [2014-03-07 07:40]: > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 23:56, Lawrence Teo wrote: > > > > pf_check_congestion() simply checks if ifq->ifq_congestion is non-zero, > > > > and returns 1 or 0 accordingly. It is only called by pf_test_rule(). > > > > > > > > Since what pf_check_congestion() does is very trivial and pf_test_rule() > > > > is its only user, would it make sense to remove it and let > > > > pf_test_rule() check ifq->ifq_congestion directly to save a function > > > > call? > > > > > > I think function calls are not so very expensive, and it makes it > > > easier to read imo. > > > > exactly. > > > > making in static inline would be the max I'd find acceptable - but I'm > > certain you won't be able to demonstrate any performance benefit > > (previous profiling is pretty clear on that). > > I have checked my old mail. The original reason for making this a > function is that we thought there might be other conditions, rather > than just a variable. That might still happen in the future.
Ah, makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying.
