[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <762056d9c081c40f3fc760c9af79d6851f0a65e5.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 13:32:02 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] Input: alps - remove unlikely() from IS_ERR*()
condition
On Sat, 2019-08-31 at 17:25 +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 29 August 2019 10:50:39 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 07:50:23PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> > > "unlikely(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(x))" is excessive. IS_ERR_OR_NULL() already uses
> > > unlikely() internally.
> >
> > The keyword here is _internally_.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190821174857.GD76194@dtor-ws/
> >
> > So please no.
I think it poor form not to simply restate your original
objection from 4 message levels below this link
https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2269724
Hm... I do not like this change. If I read code
if (unlikely(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(priv->dev3)))
then I know that it is really unlikely that condition will be truth and
so this is some case of error/exception or something that normally does
not happen too much.
But if I read code
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(priv->dev3))
I know nothing about chance that this condition will be truth. Explicit
unlikely in previous example give me more information.
I alslo think this argument is dubious as it also applies
to any IS_ERR and all the unlikely uses have been removed
from those.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists