>> >> >> >> If mem_count == 0, going through nvgrace_gpu_map_and_read() is not >> >> necessary. >> > >> > Harmless, other than the possibly unnecessary call through to >> > nvgrace_gpu_map_device_mem(). Maybe both >> nvgrace_gpu_map_and_read() >> > and nvgrace_gpu_map_and_write() could conditionally return 0 as their >> > first operation when !mem_count. Thanks, >> > >> >Alex >> >> IMO, this seems like adding too much code to reduce the call length for a >> very specific case. If there aren't any strong opinion on this, I'm planning to >> leave this code as it is. > > a slight difference. if mem_count==0 the result should always succeed > no matter nvgrace_gpu_map_device_mem() succeeds or not. Of course > if it fails it's already a big problem probably nobody cares about the subtle > difference when reading non-exist range. > > but regarding to readability it's still clearer: > > if (mem_count) > nvgrace_gpu_map_and_read(); Makes sense. I'll change it.
