On Sat 2015-08-01 13:44:59, Pali Rohár wrote: > 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? People know that errors are unlikely, no need to tell them. I'd remove it. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
