[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150801111821.GJ899@linux>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 16:48:21 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ebru Akagunduz <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] mm: Drop unlikely before IS_ERR(_OR_NULL)
On 31-07-15, 11:00, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:36 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 31-07-15, 03:28, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > If it's all fixed, then it's unlikely to be needed in checkpatch.
> >
> > I thought checkpatch is more about not committing new mistakes, rather than
> > finding them in old code.
>
> True, but checkpatch is more about style than substance.
>
> There are a lot of things that _could_ be added to the script
> but don't have to be because of relative rarity.
>
> The unanswered fundamental though is whether the unlikely use
> in #define IS_ERR_VALUE is useful.
>
> include/linux/err.h:21:#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)
>
> How often does using unlikely here make the code smaller/faster
> with more recent compilers than gcc 3.4? Or even using gcc 3.4.
No idea :)
--
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