[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180516080022.b4ihz7opiueobm7u@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:00:22 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Lai Siyao <lai.siyao@...el.com>,
Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: lustre: obdclass: change object lookup to
no wait mode
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:02:55PM +0100, James Simmons wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > * Allocate new object. This may result in rather complicated
> > > * operations, including fld queries, inode loading, etc.
> > > */
> > > o = lu_object_alloc(env, dev, f, conf);
> > > - if (IS_ERR(o))
> > > + if (unlikely(IS_ERR(o)))
> > > return o;
> > >
> >
> > This is an unrelated and totally pointless. likely/unlikely annotations
> > hurt readability, and they should only be added if it's something which
> > is going to show up in benchmarking. lu_object_alloc() is already too
> > slow for the unlikely() to make a difference and anyway IS_ERR() has an
> > unlikely built in so it's duplicative...
>
> Sounds like a good checkpatch case to test for :-)
The likely/unlikely annotations have their place in fast paths so a
checkpatch warning would get annoying...
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists