Messages in this thread | | | From | Ben Pfaff <> | Subject | Re: Memory corruption in 8390.c ? | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:03:10 -0700 |
| |
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> Ar Mer, 2006-06-21 am 10:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Ben Pfaff: >> > + memset(buf, 0, ETH_ZLEN); /* more efficient than doing just the needed bits */ >> > + memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN); >> >> Is this really correct? It zeros out ETH_ZLEN bytes only to >> immediately copy over all of them again. > > When I did it originally I tested with rdtsc and its actually quicker to > let it build the static memset the copy data over it than to do the > extra maths and the variable length loop. > > Hence the comment
You are saying that this: memset(buf, 0, ETH_ZLEN); memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN); is faster than this? memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN);
Because as far as I can tell they are equivalent. -- Ben Pfaff email: blp@cs.stanford.edu web: http://benpfaff.org - 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/
| |