From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753267AbaKCRlD (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:41:03 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:54596 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752340AbaKCRk6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:40:58 -0500 Message-ID: <5457BE20.5020205@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:40:48 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Carpenter CC: Ursula Braun , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Frank Blaschka , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle Subject: Re: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103162528.GT6890@mwanda> <5457B268.3020202@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:PChmllc3jqsQ5xQDqJaZMh5tJsWyxplzrhPTzFFAAmuwJN0Ys32 69dlxmKKludFddn3G+n9yEKVTTnZGfZl7TcbEQiObavD2lWrBgNPuyQ59JNv77UexYDCV0N qFCBKCLk595Iz3T4rp8haa8STuT/fux5CSuxgDi8T1zfJh+IXcdBv0/xOqHEETztiPlLeOd QGsPqtPPZ0wQANGa5XTlA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If you can benchmark the code and the new code is faster then, yes, this > patch is good and we will apply it. I guess that I do not have enough resources myself to measure different run time effects in a S390 environment. > If you have no benchmarks then do not send the patch. Are other software developers and testers eventually interested to try a few pointer check adjustments out a bit more? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:40:48 +0000 Subject: Re: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls Message-Id: <5457BE20.5020205@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103162528.GT6890@mwanda> <5457B268.3020202@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > If you can benchmark the code and the new code is faster then, yes, this > patch is good and we will apply it. I guess that I do not have enough resources myself to measure different run time effects in a S390 environment. > If you have no benchmarks then do not send the patch. Are other software developers and testers eventually interested to try a few pointer check adjustments out a bit more? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:40:48 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls In-Reply-To: <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103162528.GT6890@mwanda> <5457B268.3020202@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103171625.GU6890@mwanda> Message-ID: <5457BE20.5020205@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > If you can benchmark the code and the new code is faster then, yes, this > patch is good and we will apply it. I guess that I do not have enough resources myself to measure different run time effects in a S390 environment. > If you have no benchmarks then do not send the patch. Are other software developers and testers eventually interested to try a few pointer check adjustments out a bit more? Regards, Markus