From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 2/6] net: remove kfree_skb on a NULL pointer in af_netlink.c Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090921.135446.193691811.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090918005729.25594.14261.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090917.182445.240085155.davem@davemloft.net> <4AB76BD3.80802@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:55108 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753299AbZIUUy2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:54:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4AB76BD3.80802@intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: john.r.fastabend@intel.com Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org From: John Fastabend Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:04:35 +0000 >> > OK, but this depends on the unlikely() macro in kfree_skb() to catch a > case that is the expected non-error case. Would it be better to wrap > the kfree_skb() in an if statement to avoid hitting the unlikely() > macro? Or is the performance hit from the unlikely() macro so small > this is not an issue? Thanks for looking at these. > Expands too much code inline, that's why we don't do it that way.