On 13/08/2020 13.23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 02:51:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Allows to effectively us apply __must_check to a macro so we can have
>> + * both the type-agnostic benefits of the macros while also being able to
>> + * enforce that the return value is, in fact, checked.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool __must_check __must_check_bool(bool condition)
>> +{
>> + return unlikely(condition);
>> +}
>
> I'm fine with the concept, but this is a weirdly-generically-named
> function that has a very specific unlikely() in it. So I'd call
> this __must_check_overflow() and then it's obvious that overflow is
> unlikely(), whereas it's not obvious that __must_check_bool() is going
> to be unlikely().
Incidentally, __must_check_overflow was what was actually Suggested-by
me - though I didn't think too hard about that name, I certainly agree
with your reasoning.
I still don't know if (un)likely annotations actually matter when used
this way, but at least the same pattern is used in kernel/sched/, so
probably.
Rasmus
