xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr
From: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:47:13 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080414032940.GA10579@xxxxxx> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:29:40 +0200")
References: <20080319204014.GA23644@xxxxxx> <ncciqylf7q0.fsf@xxxxxxx> <20080414032940.GA10579@xxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/23.0.60 (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:14:47PM +1000, Niv Sardi wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes:
>> > The three subcases of xfs_ioc_xattr don't share any semantics and almost
>> > no code, so split it into three separate helpers.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>> 
>> Looks good to me, aren't the likely() unlinkely() deprecated ? shouldn't
>> they be killed ?
>
> Why would they be deprecated?

just an impression I had from on of Dave's comment to one of my patches:
« Can we kill all the likely() crap out of here? Modern hardware
  branch predictors are far better than static prediction hints. »

But it looks like a matter of taste…

I'll push it in.
-- 
Niv Sardi


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>