[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7c1b060f1594d21bab96e68c4b53bb3@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 08:48:18 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'zhouchuangao' <zhouchuangao@...o.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/rxrpc: Use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by
BUG.
From: zhouchuangao
> Sent: 29 April 2021 09:11
>
> BUG_ON() uses unlikely in if(), which can be optimized at compile time.
>
> do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while (0)
...
> diff --git a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
> index 4eb91d95..e5deb6f 100644
> --- a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
> +++ b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c
> @@ -505,8 +505,7 @@ void rxrpc_release_call(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct rxrpc_call *call)
> ASSERTCMP(call->state, ==, RXRPC_CALL_COMPLETE);
>
> spin_lock_bh(&call->lock);
> - if (test_and_set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED, &call->flags))
> - BUG();
> + BUG_ON(test_and_set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED, &call->flags));
Hiding as assignment inside BUG_ON() isn't nice.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists