From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m3G6apNH004038 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:36:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:37:12 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr Message-ID: <20080416063712.GN108924158@sgi.com> References: <20080319204014.GA23644@lst.de> <20080414032940.GA10579@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Niv Sardi Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:47:13PM +1000, Niv Sardi wrote: > Christoph Hellwig writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:14:47PM +1000, Niv Sardi wrote: > >> > >> > >> Christoph Hellwig writes: > >> > The three subcases of xfs_ioc_xattr don't share any semantics and almost > >> > no code, so split it into three separate helpers. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > >> > >> Looks good to me, aren't the likely() unlinkely() deprecated ? shouldn't > >> they be killed ? > > > > Why would they be deprecated? > > just an impression I had from on of Dave's comment to one of my patches: > « Can we kill all the likely() crap out of here? Modern hardware > branch predictors are far better than static prediction hints. » And the context which you haven't quoted? A repugnant hunk of code with one broken use of likely() in two unnecessary 'if (likely(!error) ...' branches, and 20 lines of my comment after the above quote demonstrating of how to restructure it so it was neater, faster and didn't need the prediction hints at all. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group