On 24/02/2020 18:46, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/24/20 8:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> Fine like this, though easier if you inline the patches so it's easier >>> to comment on them. >>> >>> Agree that the first patch looks fine, though I don't quite see why >>> you want to pass in opcode as a separate argument as it's always >>> req->opcode. Seeing it separate makes me a bit nervous, thinking that >>> someone is reading it again from the sqe, or maybe not passing in >>> the right opcode for the given request. So that seems fragile and it >>> should go away. >> >> I suppose it's to hint a compiler, that opcode haven't been changed >> inside the first switch. And any compiler I used breaks analysis there >> pretty easy. Optimising C is such a pain... > > But if the choice is between confusion/fragility/performance vs obvious > and safe, then I'll go with the latter every time. We should definitely > not pass in req and opcode separately. Yep, and even better to go with the latter, and somehow hint, that it won't change. Though, never found a way to do that. Have any tricks in a sleeve? -- Pavel Begunkov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
