| 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@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:29:40 +0200") |
| References: | <20080319204014.GA23644@lst.de> <ncciqylf7q0.fsf@sgi.com> <20080414032940.GA10579@lst.de> |
| 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: Â Can we kill all the likely() crap out of here? Modern hardware branch predictors are far better than static prediction hints. Â But it looks like a matter of tasteâ I'll push it in. -- Niv Sardi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Account Update, customercare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |