On 05/15/2012 04:57 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:48:23PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On 05/14/2012 10:45 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously we should check for NULL here instead of IS_ERR().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/idmap.c b/fs/nfs/idmap.c
>>> index ba3019f..233beea 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/idmap.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/idmap.c
>>> @@ -644,14 +644,14 @@ static int nfs_idmap_legacy_upcall(struct key_construction *cons,
>>>
>>> /* msg and im are freed in idmap_pipe_destroy_msg */
>>> msg = kmalloc(sizeof(*msg), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(msg)) {
>>> - ret = PTR_ERR(msg);
>>> + if (!msg) {
>>
>>
>> While at it please put an unlikely()
>>
>
> Normally we wouldn't put an unlikely() here. It makes the code
> less readable and it's not going to affect benchmarks. But I can
> add one if people prefer.
>
Personally It makes it more readable for me. It's like a statement:
"error, always slow-path case here". I have brain parsers set
for these.
Specifically here the if () is very small but if it is more code
it is exactly where it counts. But as a general rule I like the
error/slow-path case to be in an unlikely(). Later someone
might add more code which will matter.
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Thanks
Boaz
--
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
