On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:57:16AM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 27-Feb-19 10:36, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> On 26-Feb-19 21:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:33:10PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>>> Add the EFA common commands implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gal Pressman <galpress@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >>>> + err = efa_com_cmd_exec(aq,
> >>>> + (struct efa_admin_aq_entry *)&create_qp_cmd,
> >>>> + sizeof(create_qp_cmd),
> >>>> + (struct efa_admin_acq_entry *)&cmd_completion,
> >>>> + sizeof(cmd_completion));
> >>>> + if (unlikely(err)) {
> >>>
> >>> There is no need to add likely/unlikely not in data path.
> >>
> >> Doesn't hurt though, right?
> >
> > Right, if readability is not important, it won't hurt.
>
> Actually, I find likely/unlikely easier to read as it helps you identify the
> main flows.
> In this case the main flow is clear, but I wouldn't say that it hurts readability.
Can you please point me the place in the code where "err" is expected
behaviour and such place needs extra help to identify the main flow,
instead of naming "err" to be something else, more descriptive?
Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
