On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:07:36 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:
| Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:54:36 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:
| >
| > | Russell King wrote:
| > | > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:34:36PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > | >
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/am79c961a.c | 18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/ether1.c | 18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/ether3.c | 18 +++++++++---------
| > | >> drivers/net/arm/etherh.c | 4 ++--
| > | >> 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > I think we should really consider using netdev_priv() in all these
places
| > | > so the compiler knows that 'dev' and 'priv' are related.
| > |
| > |
| > | Good point.
| >
| > I respectfully disagree, but if the maintainter won't merge
| > them as is, so be it.
| >
| > I have trouble understanding why this:
| > return (char *)dev + ((sizeof(struct net_device) + 31) & ~31);
| > is better than using a structure->field, i.e.,
| > dev->priv
| >
| > Can one of you enlighten me?
|
|
| One is an additional pointer load and dereference, and one is a constant
| offset from the beginning of the dev structure, calculated at compile
| time. netdev_priv() provides the same results as dev->priv but at less
| cost.
OK, thanks, I see.
I think it's ugly, but you'll get updated patches anyway.
--
~Randy
|