On 12/25/21 03:02, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > Thank you for the review. > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:54 PM Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12/24/21 4:12 PM, Lad Prabhakar wrote: >> >>> pata_platform_probe() isn't a hotpath, which makes it's questionable to >>> use unlikely(). Therefore let's simply drop it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> v2-->v3 >>> * New patch >>> --- >>> drivers/ata/pata_platform.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c b/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c >>> index cb3134bf88eb..29902001e223 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c >>> @@ -199,14 +199,14 @@ static int pata_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> * Get the I/O base first >>> */ >>> io_res = platform_get_mem_or_io(pdev, 0); >>> - if (unlikely(!io_res)) >>> + if (!io_res) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> /* >>> * Then the CTL base >>> */ >>> ctl_res = platform_get_mem_or_io(pdev, 1); >>> - if (unlikely(!ctl_res)) >>> + if (!ctl_res) >>> return -EINVAL; >> >> I think you should combine this with patch #1. >> > I'd like to keep the changes separate from patch #1, as it's unrelated. But your patch 1 adds the unlikely... So simply do not add it in patch one and this patch is not necessary anymore. > > Cheers, > Prabhakar -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
