> I've only compiled (and haven't tested this code), but it should be much
> faster than the original code. Why? Because we're eliminating an extra
> "jump" in several places in the code every time open would be called.
> Yes, it's more code, so the kernel is a little bigger, but it should be
> faster at the same time, and memory should be less of an issue nowadays.
>
> Here's the patch if you want to apply it (i have only compile tested it,
> I haven't booted with it).. This patch applied to the 2.5.56 kernel.
>
> --- open.c.orig 2003-01-12 16:17:01.000000000 -0500
> +++ open.c 2003-01-12 16:22:32.000000000 -0500
> @@ -100,44 +100,58 @@
>
> error = -EINVAL;
> if (length < 0) /* sorry, but loff_t says... */
> - goto out;
> + return error;
Please don't do such things. The next time locking is changed and a lock
is needed here, some poor guy has to go through that and change all
back to goto.
This may not be applicable here, but as a general rule, don't do it.
I speak from experience.
As for efficiency, that is the compiler's job.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:42 EST