[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070926183449.GT6800@stusta.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:34:49 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
>...
> Also, Auke, if indeed compilers are [sic] likely to do better than
> programmers adding un/likely wrappers, then why do we still support that in
> the kernel? (Working for a company tat produces high-quality compilers, you
> may know the answer better.)
>
> Personally I'm not too fond of what those wrappers do the code: they make it
> a bit harder to read the code (yet another extra set of parentheses); and
> they cause the code to be indented further to the right, which you sometimes
> have to split to multiple lines to avoid going over 80 chars.
There are some places in generic code where it makes sense, e.g.:
#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while(0)
If you run into a BUG() it's anyway game over.
And there are some rare hotpaths in the kernel where it might make
sense, and many other places where the likely/unlikely usage that might
be present doesn't make sense.
Unless you know you need it you simply shouldn't use likely/unlikely.
> Cheers,
> Erez.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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