On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:27:30PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > 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. To the tune of "Teen Angst" from Cracker: Cause, what the world needs now, is another theoretical optimizer like I need a hole in my head. You'd think I'd be resigned to the l-k tradition of the unbenchmarked "optimization" patch, but apparently not yet... -VAL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Matti Aarnio
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux 2.4.21-pre3-ac4
- Next by Date: linux on compaq gs80
- Previous by thread: Re: How to avoid the woord 'goto' (was Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?)
- Next by thread: gotos in kernel [Was: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?]
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]