On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 10:08 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/23/15 9:30 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > You also remove a lot of goto, but do not place likely() or unlikely()
> > clauses that would help compiler to emit the same optimal code.
>
> I do not see where I have changed the likely/unlike
On 9/23/15 9:30 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
You also remove a lot of goto, but do not place likely() or unlikely()
clauses that would help compiler to emit the same optimal code.
I do not see where I have changed the likely/unlikely aspect of the
logic. Can you point to an example in the patches?
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 08:15 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> ip_route_input_slow is a maze of gotos (9 of them!) making it error
> prone and difficult to read. This patchset refactors it, removing all
> but 2 of the labels. The brd_input label for broadcast path requires
> too many inputs to make a reas
ip_route_input_slow is a maze of gotos (9 of them!) making it error
prone and difficult to read. This patchset refactors it, removing all
but 2 of the labels. The brd_input label for broadcast path requires
too many inputs to make a reasonble helper out of it so I left it as is.
None of these patc
