> Quoting Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipoib/cm: compliance fix
>
> thanks, applied
>
> > Important enough for -stable?
>
> I don't think so -- there's no way to hit this in practice right now,
> so I don't think it meets the -stable criteria.
>
> BTW, looking at the code that happens to be in the patch context:
>
> > if (!likely(wr_id & IPOIB_CM_RX_UPDATE_MASK)) {
>
> I think this annotation is unclear and I'm not sure gcc will do what
> is intended here (and I'm not sure what is intended). Should this be
>
> if (likely(!(wr_id & IPOIB_CM_RX_UPDATE_MASK))) {
>
> or
>
> if (unlikely(!(wr_id & IPOIB_CM_RX_UPDATE_MASK))) {
>
> ...seems as if "unlikely" is appropriate.
I expect unlikely to be equivalent: likely means typically == 1,
unlikely means typically == 0, so !likely(x) is equivalent to unlikely(!x).
I did expect gcc to do the right thing here, but go ahead and test if you like.
And I do agree "unlikely" version is more clear.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
