[Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Minor cleanup of libnet_LookupName_recv] || 2nd reviewer, please
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Feb 26 14:50:18 UTC 2018
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:33:54PM +0100, Ralph Böhme via samba-technical wrote:
> Hi Swen,
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:10:28PM +0100, Swen Schillig via samba-technical wrote:
> > A second review would be highly appreciated on the below.
> > I added the patch file for convenience.
> > Thanks in advance.
> thanks for the cleanup, but I have one nitpick.
> Why do you use unlikely() in an error check of a code path that is probably not
> performance critical?
> If others don't convince me that this is good practice: nack, sorry.
Same here: Swen, have you been able to measure a performance
difference? And if so, what was your benchmark? I would be HIGHLY
interested in seeing you how were able to actually measure this.
In talloc, this *is* measurable, at least Tridge did some good
micro-benchmarks showing some real improvement. Can you please
document what you did to get real improvement in this piece of code to
justify cluttering the code?
Before that: NACK.
Besuchen Sie die verinice.XP 2018 in Berlin,
Anwenderkonferenz für Informationssicherheit
vom 21.-23.03.2018 im Sofitel Kurfürstendamm
Info & Anmeldung hier: http://veriniceXP.org
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the samba-technical