| To: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] small skbuff.[ch] tweaks |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:04:23 +0200 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030902091059.GA53570@gaz.sfgoth.com> |
| References: | <20030902081625.GA52298@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20030902105833.04778449.ak@suse.de> <20030902091059.GA53570@gaz.sfgoth.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:10:59AM -0700, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > Both unlikely(!ptr) and likely(ptr) are not needed because gcc assumes this > > by default > > Is there any disadvantage to stating it explicitly? It makes the code much uglier. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] small skbuff.[ch] tweaks, Mitchell Blank Jr |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] small skbuff.[ch] tweaks, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] small skbuff.[ch] tweaks, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] small skbuff.[ch] tweaks, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |