[PATCH] semaphore: remove likely/unlikely annotations

Harvey Harrison
2008-02-29T02:47:33Z

Also some small codingstyle changes, empty line after declarations,
separate an if statement.

Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
---
I know it's a small thing, feel free to take it or not.

kernel/semaphore.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/semaphore.c b/kernel/semaphore.c
index 32934f2..f4aeeda 100644
--- a/kernel/semaphore.c
+++ b/kernel/semaphore.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void down(struct semaphore *sem)
{
might_sleep();
spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock);
- if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0))
+ if (sem->count-- <= 0)
__down(sem);
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock);
}
@@ -50,9 +50,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(down);
int down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem)
{
int result = 0;
+
might_sleep();
spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock);
- if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0))
+ if (sem->count-- <= 0)
result = __down_interruptible(sem);
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock);
return result;
@@ -62,9 +63,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_interruptible);
int down_killable(struct semaphore *sem)
{
int result = 0;
+
might_sleep();
spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock);
- if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0))
+ if (sem->count-- <= 0)
result = __down_killable(sem);
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock);
return result;
@@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ int down_trylock(struct semaphore *sem)

spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
count = sem->count - 1;
- if (likely(count >= 0))
+ if (count >= 0)
sem->count = count;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
return (count < 0);
@@ -103,7 +105,7 @@ void up(struct semaphore *sem)
unsigned long flags;

spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
- if (likely(sem->count >= 0))
+ if (sem->count >= 0)
sem->count++;
else
__up(sem);
@@ -128,8 +130,9 @@ struct semaphore_waiter {
*/
static void noinline __sched __up_down_common(struct semaphore *sem)
{
- struct semaphore_waiter *waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list,
- struct semaphore_waiter, list);
+ struct semaphore_waiter *waiter;
+
+ waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, struct semaphore_waiter, list);
list_del(&waiter->list);
waiter->up = 1;
wake_up_process(waiter->task);
@@ -150,10 +153,9 @@ static inline int __sched __down_common(struct semaphore *sem, long state)
waiter.up = 0;

for (;;) {
- if (unlikely((state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE &&
- signal_pending(task)) ||
- (state == TASK_KILLABLE &&
- fatal_signal_pending(task))))
+ if (state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE && signal_pending(task))
+ goto interrupted;
+ if (state == TASK_KILLABLE && fatal_signal_pending(task))
goto interrupted;
__set_task_state(task, state);
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock);
@@ -175,7 +177,7 @@ static inline int __sched __down_common(struct semaphore *sem, long state)
* but it doesn't hurt, that's not a commonly exercised path and
* it's not a performance path either.
*/
- if (unlikely((++sem->count >= 0) && !list_empty(&sem->wait_list)))
+ if (++sem->count >= 0 && !list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
__up_down_common(sem);
return result;
}
@@ -197,7 +199,7 @@ static int noinline __sched __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem)

static void noinline __sched __up(struct semaphore *sem)
{
- if (unlikely(list_empty(&sem->wait_list)))
+ if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem->count++;
else
__up_down_common(sem);
--
1.5.4.3.342.g99e8