On Saturday 01 August 2015 13:22:51 Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 31-07-15, 09:58, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:08:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > IS_ERR(_OR_NULL) already contain an 'unlikely' compiler flag and > > > there is no need to do that again from its callers. Drop it. > > > > I'd rather keep it as it documents the expected behavior and double > > unlikely should work just fine. > > TBH, I don't really agree that it is there for documentation. The > only purpose of such compiler flags is to try make code more > efficient. > > Anyway, I got to this series as someone asked me to fix this for one > of my patches which used unlikely(IS_ERR_OR_NULL()). And so I > thought about fixing all sites that are doing double unlikely (that > shouldn't hurt for sure). > > I will leave it to you. I think that unlikely() macro here make code more readable. Yes, it is also for compiler optimization, but also for me it looks like Clean Code pattern <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Code> -- is not it? -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
