From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove duplicated unlikely() in IS_ERR() From: Artem Bityutskiy In-Reply-To: <1219125321.18027.9.camel@sauron> References: <48A52D69.1040501@miraclelinux.com> <1219125321.18027.9.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:57:38 +0300 Message-Id: <1219157858.18027.44.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Hirofumi Nakagawa Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, christof.schmitt@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 08:55 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 16:16 +0900, Hirofumi Nakagawa wrote: > > Hi > > Some drivers have duplicated unlikely() macros. > > IS_ERR() already has unlikely() in itself. > > This patch cleans up such pointless codes although there is no real > > effect on the kernel's behaviour. > >=20 > > Thanks, > > Hirofumi Nakagawa > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Hirofumi Nakagawa > > --- >=20 > Hmm, after thinking a bit I am not sure this is the right way to go. > Indeed, we try to avoid likly()/unlikely(), unless this is really > hot-path. Some kernel developers even think these hints should never > be used. So I'd say, the right thing would bo to remove unlikely() > from IS_ERR() macro instead. OK, after some googling I tend to thing having unlikely() in IS_ERR() is OK, so I take your patch. Thanks.=20 --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)