On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:46 -0500, James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Fruhwirth Clemens wrote:
> > +#define scatterwalk_needscratch(walk, nbytes)
> > \
> > + ((nbytes) <= (walk)->len_this_page &&
> > \
> > + (((unsigned long)(walk)->data) & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1)) + (nbytes)
> > <= \
> > + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
> > \
>
> This should be a static inline.
First attempt:
static inline int scatterwalk_needscratch(struct scatter_walk *walk, int
nbytes) {
return ((nbytes) <= (walk)->len_this_page &&
(((unsigned long)(walk)->data) & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1)) +
(nbytes) <= PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
}
While trying to improve this unreadable monster I noticed, that
(((unsigned long)(walk)->data) & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1)) is always equal
to walk->offset. walk->data and walk->offset always grows together (see
scatterwalk_copychunks), and when the bitwise AND-ing of walk->data with
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE-1 would result walk->offset to be zero, in just that
moment, walk->offset is set zero (see scatterwalk_pagedone). So, better:
static inline int scatterwalk_needscratch(struct scatter_walk *walk, int
nbytes)
{
return (nbytes <= walk->len_this_page &&
(nbytes + walk->offset) <= PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
}
Looks nicer, right? But in fact, it's redundant. walk->offset is never
intended to grow bigger than PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, and further it's illegal
to hand cryptoapi a scatterlist, where sg->offset is greater than
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE (I presume this from the calculations in
scatterwalk_start). Are these two conclusions correct, James?
If so, I can drop the redundant expression, and probably drop the entire
function, as it becomes trivial then. Dropping the check shows no
regressions btw.
--
Fruhwirth Clemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://clemens.endorphin.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
