On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:04:47PM +0800, Sieng Piaw Liew wrote:
> Remove this trivial bit of inefficiency from the rx receive loop,
> results in increase of a few Mbps in iperf3. Tested on Intel Core2
> platform.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sieng Piaw Liew <liew.s.p...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/atheros/atl1c/atl1c_main.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/atheros/atl1c/atl1c_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/atheros/atl1c/atl1c_main.c
> index 3f65f2b370c5..b995f9a0479c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/atheros/atl1c/atl1c_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/atheros/atl1c/atl1c_main.c
> @@ -1796,9 +1796,7 @@ static void atl1c_clean_rx_irq(struct atl1c_adapter
> *adapter,
> struct atl1c_recv_ret_status *rrs;
> struct atl1c_buffer *buffer_info;
>
> - while (1) {
> - if (*work_done >= work_to_do)
> - break;
> + while (*work_done < work_to_do) {
It should not change anything, or only based on the compiler's optimization
and should not result in a measurable difference because what it does is
exactly the same. Have you really compared the compiled output code to
explain the difference ? I strongly suspect you'll find no difference at
all.
Thus for me it's certainly not an optimization, it could be qualified as
a cleanup to improve code readability however.
Willy
