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.
The general guidance in the kernel is to follow the 'success oriented
flow', so if you are looking at an 'if (thing) {goto exit/return}' it
really should be a failure path.
Jason
