Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receivecallbacks

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:30AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> > > I think Oleg already said this, but you can use directly poll_wait() 
> > > without adding another abstraction, and the compiler will drop the double 
> > > check for you:
> > 
> > I think Oleg told about cosmetics and let Jiri to choose. I'd only
> > add it's not mainly about optimization, but easy showing the main
> > difference, of course depending on taste.
> 
> We already have a universally used function to do that, and that's 
> poll_wait().
> That code (adding an extra __poll_wait()) was entirely about 
> optimizations (otherwise why not use the existing poll_wait()?), so if 
> the optimization does not actually take place, IMO it's better to not add 
> an extra API.

OK, you're right, it is about optimization! But IMHO mainly about
reading optimization... I simply guess me and probably Jiri too,
after reading Oleg's variant thought about compiler, instead of the
real difference.

Btw., maybe I miss something but I guess Oleg proposed something in
between: inlining __poll_wait(), which would save us 'extra API' and
compiler doubts. (But I still prefer Jiri's choice. ;-)

Jarek P.
--
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/