lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:19:20 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] trivial: Drop unlikely before IS_ERR(_OR_NULL)

On 31-07-15, 11:41, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC Steven Rostedt]
> 
> Any idea what the compiler does in the case of
> "if (likely(IS_ERR(...)))"? There are apparently such cases in the source.
> 
> does the "likely" somehow override the "unlikely" of IS_ERR, or is
> the resulting code a mess?

Good point. While fixing all the sites, I saw some code like that. Then before
posting the series, I tried to look at what compilers do to such codes and they
generated exactly same code for:

likely(unlikely(x)) and unlikely(x).

So, either those call sites should drop the likely bits or we supply them with
another raw version of the macro :)

Or if my tests were wrong, then please lemme know.

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ