Typically the assert is expected to not fail.
Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
Cc: Faisal Latif <[email protected]>
Cc: Chien Tung <[email protected]>
Cc: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
Cc: Faisal Latif <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
---
drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.h
index bedaa02749fb..d2d0098f38e0 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/nes/nes.h
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ do { \
#define assert(expr) \
do { \
- if (!(expr)) { \
+ if (unlikely(!(expr))) { \
printk(KERN_ERR PFX "Assertion failed! %s, %s, %s, line %d\n", \
#expr, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__); \
} \
--
2.17.1
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:24:18PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> Typically the assert is expected to not fail.
This whole assert can be removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
Most probably that I missed discussion, but anyway, does this
"Acked-by" come from internal or external discussion?
Thanks
On 05/09/18 09:01, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:24:18PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> Typically the assert is expected to not fail.
>
> This whole assert can be removed.
ok
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
>
> Most probably that I missed discussion, but anyway, does this
> "Acked-by" come from internal or external discussion?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/31/456
--
igor
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 09:01 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:24:18PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > Typically the assert is expected to not fail.
>
> This whole assert can be removed.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
>
> Most probably that I missed discussion, but anyway, does this
> "Acked-by" come from internal or external discussion?
This patch was part of a larger series on lkml. In that context, I
acked it so that the series could be applied by whomever took it (it
didn't belong on rdma-list as a series since only one patch out of some
large number touched rdma files). Now it is being resent as not part of
a series, but my ack was preserved.
--
Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
On 07/09/18 18:13, Doug Ledford wrote:
> This patch was part of a larger series on lkml. In that context, I
> acked it so that the series could be applied by whomever took it (it
> didn't belong on rdma-list as a series since only one patch out of some
> large number touched rdma files). Now it is being resent as not part of
> a series, but my ack was preserved.
Yes, apologies for the confusion (and maybe wrong process?).
The patchset as a whole didn't seem to gain traction, so I decided to
fallback to the more tedious process of submitting them individually.
Since the specific patch was not altered, I assumed the ack was still
valid - I am sorry if I did it wrongly
--
igor
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 06:25:03PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 07/09/18 18:13, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > This patch was part of a larger series on lkml. In that context, I
> > acked it so that the series could be applied by whomever took it (it
> > didn't belong on rdma-list as a series since only one patch out of some
> > large number touched rdma files). Now it is being resent as not part of
> > a series, but my ack was preserved.
>
> Yes, apologies for the confusion (and maybe wrong process?).
> The patchset as a whole didn't seem to gain traction, so I decided to
> fallback to the more tedious process of submitting them individually.
>
> Since the specific patch was not altered, I assumed the ack was still
> valid - I am sorry if I did it wrongly
You didn't do anything wrong, I was curious because my gmail already
filtered some linux-rdma mails to wrong folder and I wasn't sure if
it is the case again.
Thanks
>
> --
> igor