On 18.06.19 07:37, Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Two function calls were combined in this function implementation. >>> Inline corresponding code so that extra error checks can be avoided here. >> >> What exactly is the purpose of this ? > > I suggest to take another look at the need and relevance of involved > error checks in the discussed function combination. Sorry, don't have the time for guessing and trying to reproduce your thoughts. That's why we have patch descriptions / commit messages. It would be a lot easier for all of us if you just desribe the exact problem you'd like to solve and your approach to do so. >> Looks like a notable code duplication ... > > This can be. I doubt that code duplication is appreciated, as this increases the maintenance overhead. (actually, we're usually trying to reduce that, eg. by using lots of generic helpers). >> I thought we usually try to reduce this, instead of introducing new ones. > > Would you like to check the software circumstances once more > for the generation of a similar code structure by a C compiler > (or optimiser)? As said: unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that - you'd have to tell us, what exactly you've got in mind. If it's just about some error checks which happen to be redundant in a particular case, you'll have to show that this case is a *really* hot path (eg. irq, syscall, scheduling, etc) - but I don't see that here. What's the exact scenario you're trying to optimize ? Any actual measurements on how your patch improves that ? Look, I understand that you'd like to squeeze out maximum performance, but this has to be practically maintainable. I could list a lot of things that I don't need in particular use cases and would like to introduce build knobs for, but I have to understand that maintainers have to be pretty reluctant towards those things. --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287
