Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 09/13/2014 03:04 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: Am 13.09.2014 04:48, schrieb Li RongQing: I did not test, how to test it? Compare the object files of both variants to find out whether both create semantically equivalent code and whether the un/likely have an effect. i.e. objdump -S -d

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-13 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 13.09.2014 04:48, schrieb Li RongQing: > I did not test, how to test it? Compare the object files of both variants to find out whether both create semantically equivalent code and whether the un/likely have an effect. i.e. objdump -S -d kernel/signal.o I guess you can just remove the likely as

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-13 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 13.09.2014 04:48, schrieb Li RongQing: I did not test, how to test it? Compare the object files of both variants to find out whether both create semantically equivalent code and whether the un/likely have an effect. i.e. objdump -S -d kernel/signal.o I guess you can just remove the likely as

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-13 Thread Guenter Roeck
On 09/13/2014 03:04 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: Am 13.09.2014 04:48, schrieb Li RongQing: I did not test, how to test it? Compare the object files of both variants to find out whether both create semantically equivalent code and whether the un/likely have an effect. i.e. objdump -S -d

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-12 Thread Li RongQing
I did not test, how to test it? On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 08:48:16AM +0800, roy.qing...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Li RongQing >> >> !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can >> optimise this condition, but

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-12 Thread Li RongQing
I did not test, how to test it? On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 08:48:16AM +0800, roy.qing...@gmail.com wrote: From: Li RongQing roy.qing...@gmail.com !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-11 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 08:48:16AM +0800, roy.qing...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Li RongQing > > !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can > optimise this condition, but unlikely(!()) is clear > > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing > --- > kernel/signal.c |2 +- > 1

Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-11 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 08:48:16AM +0800, roy.qing...@gmail.com wrote: From: Li RongQing roy.qing...@gmail.com !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can optimise this condition, but unlikely(!()) is clear Signed-off-by: Li RongQing roy.qing...@gmail.com ---

[RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-10 Thread roy . qing . li
From: Li RongQing !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can optimise this condition, but unlikely(!()) is clear Signed-off-by: Li RongQing --- kernel/signal.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c

[RFC][PATCH] signal: replace !likely with unlikely!

2014-09-10 Thread roy . qing . li
From: Li RongQing roy.qing...@gmail.com !likely() is hard to be understood, and I do not know if compiler can optimise this condition, but unlikely(!()) is clear Signed-off-by: Li RongQing roy.qing...@gmail.com --- kernel/signal.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff