> >> This would save some CPU cycles for the repeated le64_to_cpu() and for
> >> the memcpy(). The number of lines of code is equal for both ways.
> >
> > Hmm? It would be many fewer lines of code.
>
> Are you thinking of something shorter than the following?
That's better, yeah, but there's still some room left to go. Almost all
of the remaining code is boiler-plate iteration that could be done with
a for(;;).
This could be a mini OCC contest! :)
> offset = (unsigned long)ptr;
> subid = cpu_to_le64(subid);
> while (sub_item_len > 0) {
> if (memcmp_extent_buffer(eb, &subid, offset,
> sizeof(subid)) == 0) {
> ret = 0;
> break;
> }
> offset += sizeof(subid);
> sub_item_len--;
> }
roughly:
unsigned long end = offset + sub_item_len;
for (ret = 1; offset < end && ret; offset += sizeof(subid))
ret = !!memcmp_extent_buffer(eb, &subid, offset,
sizeof(subid));
- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
