From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993584AbdD1Vxr (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:53:47 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]:36525 "EHLO mail-yw0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968417AbdD1Vxh (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:53:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:53:34 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations Message-ID: <20170428215334.GH22354@htj.duckdns.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:00:37PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:54:32 +0200 > > A few update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. Hmmm, allocs -> callocs. Are these actually beneficial? If so, why? Because one multiplication is rolled into the call? Thanks. -- tejun