[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201508011344.59372@pali>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:44:59 +0200
From: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"open list:INPUT (KEYBOARD, MOUSE, JOYSTICK, TOUCHSCREEN)..."
<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, Masaki Ota <masaki.ota@...alps.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] drivers: input: Drop unlikely before IS_ERR(_OR_NULL)
On Saturday 01 August 2015 13:22:51 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 31-07-15, 09:58, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:08:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > IS_ERR(_OR_NULL) already contain an 'unlikely' compiler flag and
> > > there is no need to do that again from its callers. Drop it.
> >
> > I'd rather keep it as it documents the expected behavior and double
> > unlikely should work just fine.
>
> TBH, I don't really agree that it is there for documentation. The
> only purpose of such compiler flags is to try make code more
> efficient.
>
> Anyway, I got to this series as someone asked me to fix this for one
> of my patches which used unlikely(IS_ERR_OR_NULL()). And so I
> thought about fixing all sites that are doing double unlikely (that
> shouldn't hurt for sure).
>
> I will leave it to you.
I think that unlikely() macro here make code more readable. Yes, it is
also for compiler optimization, but also for me it looks like Clean Code
pattern <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Code> -- is not it?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists