Re: First kernel patch (optimization)

[Steve Calfee]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Eric Curtin <ericcurtin17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Eric Curtin <ericcurtin17@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/tools/usb/usbip/src/usbip_detach.c b/tools/usb/usbip/src/usbip_detach.c
> index 05c6d15..9db9d21 100644
> --- a/tools/usb/usbip/src/usbip_detach.c
> +++ b/tools/usb/usbip/src/usbip_detach.c
> @@ -47,7 +47,9 @@ static int detach_port(char *port)
>         uint8_t portnum;
>         char path[PATH_MAX+1];
>
> -       for (unsigned int i = 0; i < strlen(port); i++)
> +       unsigned int port_len = strlen(port);
> +
> +       for (unsigned int i = 0; i < port_len; i++)
>                 if (!isdigit(port[i])) {
>                         err("invalid port %s", port);
>                         return -1;
>
> --

Hi Eric,

This is fine, but what kind of wimpy compiler optimizer will not move
the constant initializer out of the loop? I bet if you compare binary
sizes/code it will be exactly the same, and you added some characters
of code. Reorganizing code for readability is fine, but for compiler
(in)efficiency seems like a bad idea.

Regards, Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/