From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:06:55 -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 m3G76M0I008464 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:06:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4805A589.7080906@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:06:49 +1000 From: Timothy Shimmin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr References: <20080319204014.GA23644@lst.de> <20080414032940.GA10579@lst.de> <20080416063712.GN108924158@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080416063712.GN108924158@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Niv Sardi , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > 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. > I'm still wondering if likely() and unlikely() should ever be used or not? --Tim