On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Roel Kluin<roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Check whether index is within bounds before testing the element. > > The change is correct but: > - There are other places in the code with that construct. Even though > they wouldn't trigger an overflow, why not fixing them too? > - Keep the likely: we are more likely to run out of data in the layers > than to exhaust the counter (which is why no overflow was ever > triggered, I believe ;-) No, lose the likely. It's a for-loop; gcc will do the right thing. (If you think I'm wrong, convince me by showing the disassembly of the compiled code with and without the likely). -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
