From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:16 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y Message-ID: <20080216173315.GU8953@1wt.eu> References: <47B70A61.9030306@tiscali.nl> <20080216092552.325e5726@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080216092552.325e5726@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, lkml List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:08:01 +0100 > Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote: > > > The patch below was not yet tested. If it's correct as it is, please > > comment. --- > > Fix Unlikely(x) == y > > > > you found a great set of bugs.. > but to be honest... I suspect it's just best to remove unlikely altogether for these cases; > unlikely() is almost a go-faster-stripes thing, and if you don't know how to use it you shouldn't > be using it... so just removing it for all wrong cases is actually the best thing to do imo. Well, eventhough the author may not know how to use it, "unlikely" at least indicates the intention of the author, or his knowledge of what should happen here. I'd suggest leaving it where it is because the authot of this code is in best position to know that this branch is unlikely to happen, eventhough he does not correctly use the macro. Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758114AbYBPRdj (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:33:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755257AbYBPRdc (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:33:32 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:1987 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755206AbYBPRdb (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:33:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:16 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, geoffrey.levand@am.sony.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y Message-ID: <20080216173315.GU8953@1wt.eu> References: <47B70A61.9030306@tiscali.nl> <20080216092552.325e5726@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080216092552.325e5726@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:08:01 +0100 > Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote: > > > The patch below was not yet tested. If it's correct as it is, please > > comment. --- > > Fix Unlikely(x) == y > > > > you found a great set of bugs.. > but to be honest... I suspect it's just best to remove unlikely altogether for these cases; > unlikely() is almost a go-faster-stripes thing, and if you don't know how to use it you shouldn't > be using it... so just removing it for all wrong cases is actually the best thing to do imo. Well, eventhough the author may not know how to use it, "unlikely" at least indicates the intention of the author, or his knowledge of what should happen here. I'd suggest leaving it where it is because the authot of this code is in best position to know that this branch is unlikely to happen, eventhough he does not correctly use the macro. Willy