Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:38:40 -0800 | From | Dave Hansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Avoid redundant address overlap tests in memcpy(). |
| |
On 1/22/22 17:58, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > -void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n) > +void *____memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n) > { > unsigned char *d = dest; > const unsigned char *s = src; > > - if (d <= s || d - s >= n) > - return ____memcpy(dest, src, n); > - > while (n-- > 0) > d[n] = s[n]; > > return dest; > }
The ___ naming is pretty cruel. Could we call it memmove_no_overlap() or memmove_unsafe()? Surely we can put some *useful* bytes in the name rather than padding it out with _'s. No need to perpetuate the ____memcpy() naming.
Also, is this worth the churn? It probably saves less than 10 instructions, all of which are ridiculously cheap. Is there a *reason* for this other than being a pure cleanup?
| |