On Thursday 05 November 2015 19:00:36 Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That works, but why not keep the code as it is here? ktime_get_seconds()
> > still adds a little overhead if we call it unconditionally, and the
> > author of the original code apparently felt that it was worth optimizing
> > for.
> >
>
> Oh okay, I sent a v2 thinking that the removal of if condition would
> work. But since you're saying that the optimising seems necessary.
> I'll change it to
> u64 timestamp;
> if (fcport->stats_status == BFA_STATUS_OK)
> timestamp = ktime_get_seconds();
>
> Is this fine?
Yes, that looks ok. I'd probably use 'time64_t' instead of 'u64', and
'long' would also work just as well here because it is monotonic time.
Regarding the optimization, I think it is not an important one and it
could indeed be removed, but only if you can prove that the code without
the optimization is as efficient in practice, and explain that in
the changelog text. It's usually easier not to change it then, so you
don't have to spend the time figuring out whether that is an improvement
or not.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
