On Sunday 02 August 2015 17:43:52 Pavel Machek wrote: > 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 Errors and bugs are always unlikely ;-) -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
