From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179BFC388F7 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 18:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C231E22260 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 18:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1418384AbgJYS44 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:56:56 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:26646 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2395217AbgJYS44 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:56:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,416,1596492000"; d="scan'208";a="474223595" Received: from 173.121.68.85.rev.sfr.net (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2020 19:56:54 +0100 Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:56:54 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring cc: Coccinelle , Gilles Muller , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BCocci=5D_Coccinelle=3A_null=3A_Optimise_disj?= =?UTF-8?Q?unctions_in_SmPL_script_=E2=80=9Ceno=2Ecocci=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: <8f58a94e-b093-a587-c56a-a0ea0fc1f3ea@web.de> Message-ID: References: <0d1575b0-ab37-663e-2464-278fd76280b5@web.de> <8f58a94e-b093-a587-c56a-a0ea0fc1f3ea@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 25 Oct 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> This analysis result indicates a clear ranking for such function calls. > >> Thus reorder the SmPL disjunction items according to their usage incidence. > > > > Did you actually test this before and after the change and see a > > difference in performance? > > Would you become interested to configure a representative test environment > for safe comparisons of corresponding run time characteristics > of the affected software? In what sense could the comparison possibly be unsafe? Just use time and run spatch on whatever machine you want. It's not that complicated. > > On my laptop, I see absolutely no difference, > > for the patch mode and for the context mode. > > Does such information trigger a desire to clarify involved aspects in more detail? Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6200U CPU @ 2.30GHz julia