On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 14:53 +0100, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > - return r;
> > + if(ntohl(a->s6_addr32[i]) != ntohl(b->s6_addr32[i]))
> > + return ntohl(a->s6_addr32[i]) < ntohl(b->s6_addr32[i]);
> > }
>
> Why do you convert to host order in the inequality test? It could be left
> out.
Yes it can be, just a left over from the old code I suppose. Didn't
really thing about that ;)
But if we are talking about performance, what about the following
part:
if (info->flags & IPRANGE_SRC) {
m = iprange_ipv6_lt(&iph->saddr, &info->src_min.in6);
m |= iprange_ipv6_lt(&info->src_max.in6, &iph->saddr);
m ^= !!(info->flags & IPRANGE_SRC_INV);
if (m)
return false;
}
Shouldn't this be m ||= .. in the second call to iprange_ipv6_lt,
to allow for some short circuit optimizations? Or in order
to reduce the rather asymmetric behaviour then, shouldn't these two
function calls be merged into something like
static inline int
iprange_ipv6_cmp(const struct in6_addr *a, const struct in6_addr *b,
const struct in6_addr *x )
{
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
if(x->s6_addr32[i] != a->s6_addr32[i])
return ntohl(x->s6_addr32[i])<ntohl(a->s6_addr32[i]);
if(x->s6_addr32[i] != b->s6_addr32[i])
return ntohl(b->s6_addr32[i])<ntohl(x->s6_addr32[i]);
}
return 0;
}
Or would that be bad from a 1st level caching point of view?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
