linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix sysrq caused USB performance regressions and leak

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]

Message-Id: <1247216873l.25954l.0l@i-dmzi_al.realan.de>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:07:53 +0200
From:	Anders Larsen <al@...rsen.net>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix sysrq caused USB performance regressions and
 leak

On 2009-07-10 02:01:37, Alan Cox wrote:
> > shouldn't it be
> > +	if (likely(!port->console || !port->sysrq))
> > respectively
> > +	if (unlikely(port->console && port->sysrq)) {
> > 
> > at least for clarity?
> 
> It'll get predicted by the CPU just fine I suspect.

I thought likely() / unlikely() were for the _compiler_ to arrange the
blocks more efficiently?

Anders

--
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/