On 01/23/2017 12:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > Would you like to check run time consequences > for the shown error code settings once more? Sure, lets for now ignore the fact that the performance of an error path does not matter most of the time. Have you actually looked at your patch? After tree building and optimization your change should not matter at all regarding performance for a decent compiler. The compiler can and will do much more complex transformations than this. Since you have send several patches that trigger compile time warnings or errors, let me do this exercise for you and let us check what your patch changes in terms of run time consequences. $ git checkout v4.10-rc4 HEAD is now at 49def18... Linux 4.10-rc4 $ make arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.o [..] $ objdump -d arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.o | md5sum 55c1e081f55cef90b3ffcc06a13721c1 - $ git am ~/code/elfring/[PATCH] KVM: s390: Move two error code assignments in kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log().eml Applying: KVM: s390: Move two error code assignments in kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() $ make arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.o [..] $ objdump -d arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.o | md5sum 55c1e081f55cef90b3ffcc06a13721c1 - As you can see the binary is identical, so I can make an educated guess, that there is no performance improvement due to your patch. The bad news is that there are reasons to not apply this patch as outlined by me and by Paolo. Can we come back to a point, where you accept feedback? Christian PS: and maybe you should also start to test your patches in a cross-compile environment before submitting or - heaven forbid - maybe even test your changes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
