Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:33:40 +0200 | From | Patrick Schaaf <> | Subject | Re: ip_conntrack_hash() problem |
| |
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:24:25PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > B) I despise the (1 << ...htable_bits) construct, used in several places. > It's nothing but obfuscation. Please reinstate ...htable_size, and > use that, the code will be more readable. > > You despise, but the processor doesn't. Less data loads > means the code goes faster.
Please explain. I don't think that matters here:
Both _bits and _size are unsigned int, same amount of stuff to load.
The one single per-packet-path use is in hash_conntrack(), where the _bits thing can be used without touching the _size thing.
All other places where the patch now uses _bits, really need _size, and do the ugly computation by shifting. And all those other places are called very rarely.
So, I don't see how your (abstractly true) observation is relevant, here.
best regards Patrick - 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/
|  |