Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
CC:     James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        "Siyao, Lai" <lai.siyao@intel.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: lustre: obdclass: change object lookup to
 no wait mode
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 4/4] staging: lustre: obdclass: change object lookup to
 no wait mode
Thread-Index: AQHT7OwdemUl4VD6TkCSX3ZkBHhspKQyh4qA
Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 09:12:32 +0000
Message-ID: <EDCE6E68-0B5C-4F82-B356-8D70AE5FF92A@intel.com>
References: <1525285308-15347-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org>
 <1525285308-15347-5-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org>
 <20180508114500.qrtnjax4siupgv3n@mwanda>
 <alpine.LFD.2.21.1805150207500.576@casper.infradead.org>
 <20180516080022.b4ihz7opiueobm7u@mwanda>
In-Reply-To: <20180516080022.b4ihz7opiueobm7u@mwanda>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <80C2CFBAEAE0B94588A644234D0791F0@intel.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On May 16, 2018, at 02:00, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:02:55PM +0100, James Simmons wrote:
>> 
>>>> 	/*
>>>> 	 * Allocate new object. This may result in rather complicated
>>>> 	 * operations, including fld queries, inode loading, etc.
>>>> 	 */
>>>> 	o = lu_object_alloc(env, dev, f, conf);
>>>> -	if (IS_ERR(o))
>>>> +	if (unlikely(IS_ERR(o)))
>>>> 		return o;
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is an unrelated and totally pointless.  likely/unlikely annotations
>>> hurt readability, and they should only be added if it's something which
>>> is going to show up in benchmarking.  lu_object_alloc() is already too
>>> slow for the unlikely() to make a difference and anyway IS_ERR() has an
>>> unlikely built in so it's duplicative...
>> 
>> Sounds like a good checkpatch case to test for :-)
> 
> The likely/unlikely annotations have their place in fast paths so a
> checkpatch warning would get annoying...

I think James was suggesting a check for unlikely(IS_ERR()), or possibly
a check for unlikely() on something that is already unlikely() after CPP
expansion.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation