On 2019/2/15 17:35, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 05:32:33PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/2/15 15:57, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:02:25PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2019/2/1 20:16, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * on-disk error, let's only BUG_ON in the debugging mode.
>>>>> + * otherwise, it will return 1 to just skip the invalid name
>>>>> + * and go on (in consideration of the lookup performance).
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + DBG_BUGON(qd->name > qd->end);
>>>>
>>>> qd->name == qd->end is not allowed as well?
>>>>
>>>> So will it be better to return directly here?
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(qd->name >= qd->end)) {
>>>> DBG_BUGON(1);
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Please don't add likely/unlikely() annotations unless you have
>>> benchmarked it and it makes a difference.
>>
>> Well, it only occur for corrupted image, since the image is readonly, so it
>> is really rare.
>
> The likely/unlikely() annotations make the code harder to read. It's
Well, I think unlikely here can imply this is a rare case which may help to
read...
> only worth it if it's is a speedup on a fast path.
I guess unlikely here can help pipeline to load/execute right branch codes
instead of that rare branch one with BUGON(), is that right?
Thanks,
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
> .
>
