lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
    Date

    > I've only compiled (and haven't tested this code), but it should be much
    > faster than the original code. Why? Because we're eliminating an extra
    > "jump" in several places in the code every time open would be called.
    > Yes, it's more code, so the kernel is a little bigger, but it should be
    > faster at the same time, and memory should be less of an issue nowadays.
    >
    > Here's the patch if you want to apply it (i have only compile tested it,
    > I haven't booted with it).. This patch applied to the 2.5.56 kernel.
    >
    > --- open.c.orig 2003-01-12 16:17:01.000000000 -0500
    > +++ open.c 2003-01-12 16:22:32.000000000 -0500
    > @@ -100,44 +100,58 @@
    >
    > error = -EINVAL;
    > if (length < 0) /* sorry, but loff_t says... */
    > - goto out;
    > + return error;

    Please don't do such things. The next time locking is changed and a lock
    is needed here, some poor guy has to go through that and change all
    back to goto.
    This may not be applicable here, but as a general rule, don't do it.
    I speak from experience.

    As for efficiency, that is the compiler's job.

    Regards
    Oliver

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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:4.120 / U:0.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site