The definition of IS_ERR() already applies the unlikely() notation
when checking the error status of the passed pointer. For this
reason there is no need to have the same notation outside of
IS_ERR() itself.
Clean up code by removing redundant notation.
Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli <a@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/md/dm-ebs-target.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-ebs-target.c b/drivers/md/dm-ebs-target.c
index cb85610527c2..55bcfb74f51f 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-ebs-target.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-ebs-target.c
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static int __ebs_rw_bvec(struct ebs_c *ec, int rw, struct bio_vec *bv, struct bv
else
ba = dm_bufio_new(ec->bufio, block, &b);
- if (unlikely(IS_ERR(ba))) {
+ if (IS_ERR(ba)) {
/*
* Carry on with next buffer, if any, to issue all possible
* data but return error.
--
2.29.2
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
