Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[INET\]\s+Optimise\s+away\s+a\s+branch\s+in\s+IP_ECN_set

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[INET\]\s+Optimise\s+away\s+a\s+branch\s+in\s+IP_ECN_set_ce\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: ko <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:03:31 +1000; Hi Dave: I was bored so here is a patch that optimises away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Em; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00221.html (8,946 bytes)
2. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:24:28 +0900 (JST); s/__constant_htons/htons/g here, please. And, I think u16 ecn = (iph->tos + 1) & INET_ECN_MASK; check += (u32)htons(0xfffb) + (u32)htons(ecn); or something like that? -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Pro; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00222.html (9,934 bytes)
3. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: ideaki / 鍚夎棨鑻辨槑 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:27:57 -0300; Em Qua 08 Set 2004 21:24, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 彖桄 escreveu: For Herbert understanding: the generated code is the same in this case. :); /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00223.html (10,445 bytes)
4. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: rnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:36:25 +0900 (JST); Yes, thanks. And, we don't use __const_{hton,ntoh}{s,l}() unless it is really required. e.g. variable initializer --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00224.html (10,690 bytes)
5. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: eter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:53:18 -0300; Em Qua 08 Set 2004 21:36, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 鍚夎棨鑻辨槑 escreveu: Yes, that is the only case, like I learned in my early janitor days, using the __constant_ variations is not needed and makes the code nee; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00227.html (11,111 bytes)
6. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: em@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:10:16 +1000; . peter; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00231.html (10,100 bytes)
7. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:27:36 +0900 (JST); xxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00232.html (10,077 bytes)
8. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:54:42 +1000; are (di; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00234.html (10,609 bytes)
9. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:58:03 +0900 (JST); rt@xxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00235.html (9,641 bytes)
10. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: u <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:35:22 -0700; diff -; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00241.html (9,394 bytes)
11. [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:03:31 +1000; Hi Dave: I was bored so here is a patch that optimises away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Em; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01677.html (8,991 bytes)
12. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:24:28 +0900 (JST); s/__constant_htons/htons/g here, please. And, I think u16 ecn = (iph->tos + 1) & INET_ECN_MASK; check += (u32)htons(0xfffb) + (u32)htons(ecn); or something like that? -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Pro; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01678.html (9,992 bytes)
13. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:27:57 -0300; Em Qua 08 Set 2004 21:24, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / escreveu: For Herbert understanding: the generated code is the same in this case. :); /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01679.html (10,574 bytes)
14. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:36:25 +0900 (JST); Yes, thanks. And, we don't use __const_{hton,ntoh}{s,l}() unless it is really required. e.g. variable initializer --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01680.html (10,823 bytes)
15. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:53:18 -0300; Em Qua 08 Set 2004 21:36, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / escreveu: Yes, that is the only case, like I learned in my early janitor days, using the __constant_ variations is not needed and makes the code needless; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01683.html (11,255 bytes)
16. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:10:16 +1000; Good point. The second htons is less optimal than the shift because htons doesn't know that ecn is only a byte. So it'll end up doing a full swap. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01687.html (10,258 bytes)
17. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:27:36 +0900 (JST); Not true; gcc is clever enough to produces same code, and my code looks better. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EE; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01688.html (10,206 bytes)
18. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:54:42 +1000; Sorry, you're right. Here is an updated patch. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01690.html (10,836 bytes)
19. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:58:03 +0900 (JST); Signed-off-by: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01691.html (9,771 bytes)
20. Re: [INET] Optimise away a branch in IP_ECN_set_ce (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:35:22 -0700; Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01697.html (9,578 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]