On May 16, 2018, at 02:00, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:02:55PM +0100, James Simmons wrote: >> >>>> /* >>>> * Allocate new object. This may result in rather complicated >>>> * operations, including fld queries, inode loading, etc. >>>> */ >>>> o = lu_object_alloc(env, dev, f, conf); >>>> - if (IS_ERR(o)) >>>> + if (unlikely(IS_ERR(o))) >>>> return o; >>>> >>> >>> This is an unrelated and totally pointless. likely/unlikely annotations >>> hurt readability, and they should only be added if it's something which >>> is going to show up in benchmarking. lu_object_alloc() is already too >>> slow for the unlikely() to make a difference and anyway IS_ERR() has an >>> unlikely built in so it's duplicative... >> >> Sounds like a good checkpatch case to test for :-) > > The likely/unlikely annotations have their place in fast paths so a > checkpatch warning would get annoying... I think James was suggesting a check for unlikely(IS_ERR()), or possibly a check for unlikely() on something that is already unlikely() after CPP expansion. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Principal Architect Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
