From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing code Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:15:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20150330111505.6f1b6f4b@urahara> References: <1427404494-27256-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20150327102956.GB5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150327113238.GA11660@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150327140735.GG5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150327143049.GB9972@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150327143841.GH5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20150327145526.GA10332@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150327164358.GI5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0344F112F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Don Provan Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:39:06 +0000 Don Provan wrote: > In all the debate about atomics, I don't think anyone got around to pointing out that in the unlikely case that the refcnt is not 1, then it's equally unlikely that decrementing it will result in 0 despite the code's claim to the contrary. That's the part that confused me. Would it make sense to fix this while adding the comment? Really doubt the second likely() makes any difference in code speed. Should probably just be removed.