From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:19:03 -0500
> > Perhaps move the skb->cloned = 1 to just after n->cloned = 1 > > or > > skb->cloned = n->cloned = 1; > > or maybe > > skb->cloned = 1; > > C(cloned); > > I thought about that, but I kinda like how the parent-skb-only changes are > grouped together at the end. I think the distinction helps readability, but > then again we've already seen how subjective readability can be :) I think either way is fine, as long as the stores are ordered properly. The ordering of the loads and little issues like this skb->cloned thing are much less important. Actually, if you look at the generated assembler, GCC makes a mess of all of these bitfield accesses, largely destroying the pure store stream since it does a read/modify/write on a word for each bitfield set. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
