Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> Ar Mer, 2006-06-21 am 10:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Ben Pfaff:
>> > + memset(buf, 0, ETH_ZLEN); /* more efficient than doing just the needed bits */
>> > + memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN);
>>
>> Is this really correct? It zeros out ETH_ZLEN bytes only to
>> immediately copy over all of them again.
>
> When I did it originally I tested with rdtsc and its actually quicker to
> let it build the static memset the copy data over it than to do the
> extra maths and the variable length loop.
>
> Hence the comment
You are saying that this:
memset(buf, 0, ETH_ZLEN);
memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN);
is faster than this?
memcpy(buf, data, ETH_ZLEN);
Because as far as I can tell they are equivalent.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [email protected]
web: http://benpfaff.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
