On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
Now, it gives me a warning since the if condition makes it a possibility that timestamp may be uninitialised for the later operation in the code. Not understanding, shouldn't it have given a warning when declared also, as 'struct timeval tv' since do_gettimeofday() was also intialising 'tv' only when the if condition held true. -- Amitoj _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
