[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] more improvement to dev_alloc_name -- strnchr

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] more improvement to dev_alloc_name -- strnchr
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:44:29 -0800
Cc: shemminger@xxxxxxxx, ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040119221515.74629ac4.ak@xxxxxxx>
References: <1074302619.40088e9bd44a6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040119113204.5913a8d6.shemminger@xxxxxxxx> <20040119210605.3cea32b0.ak@xxxxxxx> <20040119130744.324f582b.shemminger@xxxxxxxx> <20040119221515.74629ac4.ak@xxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:15:15 +0100
Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:07:44 -0800
> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What if gcc does it inline in some future version?
> Not sure what it has to do with that. The #ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_* stuff 
> is that architectures with crazy enough hackers can add assembly
> optimized functions if they want. But it clearly doesn't make any sense
> with this function (in fact it doesn't make much sense with any string
> function except memset/memcpy), so better not encourage it.

Sometimes it is just used on a platform to force a call to the gcc builtin.

I think it's perfectly reasonable what Stephen has done.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>