Re: [PATCH] [2.6] [1/2] hlist: replace explicit checks of hlist fieldsw/ func calls

[Alex Pankratov]

Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:57:43 -0800
> Alex Pankratov <ap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Ugh, yeah, I thought about this. However my understand was that
> > since hlist_null is statically allocated variable, its address
> > will be a known constant at a link time (whether it's a static
> > link or dynamic/run-time link - btw, excuse my lack of proper
> > terminology here). So comparing something to &null would be
> > equivalent to comparing to the constant and not require an
> > extra register.
>
>
> Hmm, you're right. Apparently I was still thinking about the bad
> code generated by the standard list_heads. 

A quick note about standard lists then - circular double-linked
lists are normally described in textbooks as a clever trick
allowing to avoid if's in insert() and delete(). Given what you
have noted about CMP speed above, I wonder if simple 0-terminated
lists would be something to consider for lower-end i386.

Alex

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/