Re: optimalisation for strlcpy (lib/string.c)

Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> Like the other patch (by that other person), I think it is faster to not
> do a strlen first.

Debatable.  You've replaced a call to the highly-optimized memcpy function
with a byte-by-byte copy.  It's probably a wash performance wise (have you
benchmarked?) and is certainly less clear.

-Mitch
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: optimalisation for strlcpy (lib/string.c)
    • From: Folkert van Heusden <[email protected]>

• References:
  • optimalisation for strlcpy (lib/string.c)
    • From: Folkert van Heusden <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: parallel boot device initialisation (kernel-space not userspace)
• Next by Date: Re: strncpy optimalisation? (lib/string.c)
• Previous by thread: optimalisation for strlcpy (lib/string.c)
• Next by thread: Re: optimalisation for strlcpy (lib/string.c)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]