On 2010-12-09 at 16:53:38 +0100, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Tobias Klauser wrote: > > > IS_ERR() already implies unlikely(), so it can be omitted here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/ext3/namei.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext3/namei.c b/fs/ext3/namei.c > > index bce9dce..268f776 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext3/namei.c > > +++ b/fs/ext3/namei.c > > @@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ static struct dentry *ext3_lookup(struct inode * dir, struct dentry *dentry, str > > return ERR_PTR(-EIO); > > } > > inode = ext3_iget(dir->i_sb, ino); > > - if (unlikely(IS_ERR(inode))) { > > + if (IS_ERR(inode)) { > > if (PTR_ERR(inode) == -ESTALE) { > > ext3_error(dir->i_sb, __func__, > > "deleted inode referenced: %lu", > > > > Good catch, but I guess the same thing may be done for ext2/4. I did so actually [0], [1]. Unfortunately I didn't submit the three patches as a series. [0] http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2010/12/09/6 [1] http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2010/12/09/5 Cheers Tobias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html