| Message ID | 4FFDF78A.7050606@inktank.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Index: b/include/linux/ceph/decode.h =================================================================== --- a/include/linux/ceph/decode.h +++ b/include/linux/ceph/decode.h @@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ static inline int ceph_has_room(void **p return end >= *p && n <= end - *p; } -#define ceph_decode_need(p, end, n, bad) \ - do { \ - if (!likely(ceph_has_room(p, end, n))) \ - goto bad; \ +#define ceph_decode_need(p, end, n, bad) \ + do { \ + if (unlikely(!ceph_has_room(p, end, n))) \ + goto bad; \ } while (0) #define ceph_decode_64_safe(p, end, v, bad) \
For some reason, the way ceph_decode_need() is written throws me off whenever I look at it: if (!likely(ceph_has_room(p, end, n))) I read it as "not likely ceph has room," which is not what it really means. Despite being a double-negative, which I normally avoid, I like this better: if (unlikely(!ceph_has_room(p, end, n))) What do you think? Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com> --- include/linux/ceph/decode.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html