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;
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:33:51 +0800 (CST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
cc:     Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage
In-Reply-To: <95c32d19-eb4d-a214-6332-038610ec3dbd@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908282033350.2325@hadrien>
References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com> <b5bae2981e27d133b61d99b08ee60244bf7aabe3.camel@perches.com> <88f6e48e-1230-9488-a973-397f4e6dfbb5@linux.com> <4E9DDF9E-C883-44F0-A3F4-CD49284DB60D@lip6.fr>
 <95c32d19-eb4d-a214-6332-038610ec3dbd@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

> On 25/08/2019 21.19, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 26 Aug 2019, at 02:59, Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 25.08.2019 19:37, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 2019-08-25 at 16:05 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> >>>> This patch adds coccinelle script for detecting !likely and !unlikely
> >>>> usage. It's better to use unlikely instead of !likely and vice versa.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain _why_ is it better in the changelog.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In my naive understanding the negation (!) before the likely/unlikely
> >> could confuse the compiler
> >
> > As a human I am confused. Is !likely(x) equivalent to x or !x?
>
> #undef likely
> #undef unlikely
> #define likely(x) (x)
> #define unlikely(x) (x)
>
> should be a semantic no-op. So changing !likely(x) to unlikely(x) is
> completely wrong. If anything, !likely(x) can be transformed to
> unlikely(!x).

Thanks.  Making the change seems like a good idea.

julia