Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:22:13 +0200 | From | Kurt Garloff <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks |
| |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * James Morris (jmorris@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Chris Wright wrote: > > > Is this new (i.e. you just did this)? It's basically the same result we > > > had from a few years ago. > > > > Yes, did it today. > > Thanks, James. Since these are the only concrete numbers and they are > in the noise, I see no compelling reason to change to unlikely().
Well, you may want to drop the unlikely if you dislike it. The rest of the path is still a win IMVHO.
Unfortunately, it has not been discussed here yet.
Reards, -- Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> [Koeln, DE] Physics:Plasma modeling <garloff@plasimo.phys.tue.nl> [TU Eindhoven, NL] Linux: SUSE Labs (Head) <garloff@suse.de> [SUSE Nuernberg, DE] [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |