Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 09:05 -0400, Bob Copeland wrote: >> >> So I did just go and check the generated code for each of these cases >> and gcc didn't elide the subsequent if-test, at least on x86-64 and >> my compiler / build config. Given http://lwn.net/Articles/342330, it >> seems possible, though. > > It's not clear that's the same situation, since tun->sk is very likely > to have been an actual pointer, not an embedded thing like drv_priv. > > However, with all this, I think I'd simply not take any chances - the > patch isn't exactly invasive and in some cases (for example the first > hunk of the patch) will even improve the code to the point where the > compiler could warn about uninitialized usage of the pointer when the > code gets modified to use it in case of !txq->sta. > > I'd take it, but I guess it's Kalle's decision :) Yeah, I'm leaning towards Johannes. These are not really invasive. -- Kalle Valo��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
