Hi Andi, On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:08:43 +0200, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryusuke Konishi <[email protected]> writes: > > > > diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c > > index 22c7f65..e8f188b 100644 > > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c > > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c > > @@ -1846,26 +1846,13 @@ static int nilfs_segctor_write(struct nilfs_sc_info > > *sci, > > err = nilfs_segbuf_write(segbuf, &wi); > > > > res = nilfs_segbuf_wait(segbuf, &wi); > > - err = unlikely(err) ? : res; > > + err = unlikely(err) ? err : res; > > It's very dubious gcc does anything with unlikely here anyways. > They typically only work directly in conditions being tested.
I got it. I'll rewrite the first bugfix so that it just removes the unlikely directive. - err = unlikely(err) ? : res; + err = err ? : res; > > if (unlikely(err)) > > return err; > > Also gcc generally considers conditions to blocks that > return unlikely, so it's actually superfluous. Thanks, I didn't know this. I'll take in this, too. > -Andi > -- > [email protected] -- Speaking for myself only. Regards, Ryusuke Konishi _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
