On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:33:57AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > So what remains is the way these implementations are encapsulated by > the crct10dif() library function, which is raster nasty, making > CRC-T10DIF an excellent use case to discuss whether we can make any > improvements to address some of the concerns that were also raised in > the zinc discussion. I threw some code together a while ago [0] (and > posted it as well, IIRC). In the mean time, a 'static call' > infrastructure is being proposed that could be used in a similar way > to avoid function pointers. I'm also interested in hearing opinions on > whether the indirect call overhead is actually significant in use > cases such as this one. I think even if the overhead wasn't significant it would still make sense to make the move just for the sake of simplicity. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
