From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E2943E14; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:01:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D68402C0; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:01:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA65A4028C for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10]) by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4C021276; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 01/30] cocci/rte_memcpy: add script to eliminate fixed size rte_memcpy Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:01:47 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F36E@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <20240405165518.367503-2-stephen@networkplumber.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 01/30] cocci/rte_memcpy: add script to eliminate fixed size rte_memcpy Thread-Index: AdqHeh0vjbKeCSTzRVqSgFC4STlNYwAhfMhA References: <20240403163432.437275-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240405165518.367503-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240405165518.367503-2-stephen@networkplumber.org> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Stephen Hemminger" , X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Friday, 5 April 2024 18.53 >=20 > Rte_memcpy should not be used for the simple case of copying > a fix size structure because it is slower and will hide problems "it is slower"... not always true. Perhaps: "it is not faster than memcpy". > from code analysis tools. Coverity, fortify and other analyzers > special case memcpy(). >=20 > Gcc (and Clang) are smart enough to inline copies which > will be faster. "faster" -> "just as fast". >=20 > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > --- With the updated description, For the series, Acked-by: Morten Br=F8rup