On Tue, Oct 30 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:50:58AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > How so? The reason you changed it to sg_init_table() + sg_set_buf() is
> > exactly because sg_init_one() didn't properly init the entry (as they
> > name promised).
>
> For one of the cases yes but the other one repeatedly calls
> sg_init_one on the same sg entry while we really only need
> to initialise it once and call sg_set_buf afterwards.
>
> Normally this is irrelevant but the loops in question are
> trying to estimate the speed of the algorithms so it's good
> to exclude as much noise from them as possible.
Ah OK, I was referring to the replacement mentioned above.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
