RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 08/11] f2fs: fix wrong condition for unlikely

[Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com>]

Hi Jaegeuk,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 6:47 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 08/11] f2fs: fix wrong condition for unlikely
> 
> This patch fixes the wrongly used unlikely condition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> index 42a16c1..36b0d47 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> @@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ static void do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool is_umount)
>  	/* Here, we only have one bio having CP pack */
>  	sync_meta_pages(sbi, META_FLUSH, LONG_MAX);
> 
> -	if (unlikely(!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG))) {
> +	if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG)) {

Maybe use likely(!is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG)) or

if (unlikely(is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_ERROR_FLAG)))
	return;

is more appropriate. How do you think?

>  		clear_prefree_segments(sbi);
>  		release_dirty_inode(sbi);
>  		F2FS_RESET_SB_DIRT(sbi);
> --
> 1.8.5.2 (Apple Git-48)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel