netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: provide macros for commonly copied lockless queue stop/wake code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230322220843.6db66d98@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 22:08:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: provide macros for commonly copied
 lockless queue stop/wake code

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:23:32 +0530 Pavan Chebbi wrote:
> > +               /* We need to check again in a case another             \
> > +                * CPU has just made room available.                    \
> > +                */                                                     \
> > +               if (likely(get_desc < start_thrs)) {                    \  
> 
> I am only curious to understand why initializing _res with likely
> result and having a condition to cover only the unlikely case, would
> not be better.
> As in:
>     int _res = 0;
>     if (unlikely(get_desc >= start_thrs) {
>         start_queue()
>         _res = -1
>     }

I don't think it matters.