Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] ata: pata_platform: Drop use of unlikely() in pata_platform_probe

[Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>]

On 12/25/21 03:02, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:54 PM Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/24/21 4:12 PM, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
>>
>>> pata_platform_probe() isn't a hotpath, which makes it's questionable to
>>> use unlikely(). Therefore let's simply drop it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2-->v3
>>> * New patch
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/ata/pata_platform.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c b/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c
>>> index cb3134bf88eb..29902001e223 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_platform.c
>>> @@ -199,14 +199,14 @@ static int pata_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>        * Get the I/O base first
>>>        */
>>>       io_res = platform_get_mem_or_io(pdev, 0);
>>> -     if (unlikely(!io_res))
>>> +     if (!io_res)
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>>       /*
>>>        * Then the CTL base
>>>        */
>>>       ctl_res = platform_get_mem_or_io(pdev, 1);
>>> -     if (unlikely(!ctl_res))
>>> +     if (!ctl_res)
>>>               return -EINVAL;
>>
>>    I think you should combine this with patch #1.
>>
> I'd like to keep the changes separate from patch #1, as it's unrelated.

But your patch 1 adds the unlikely... So simply do not add it in patch
one and this patch is not necessary anymore.

> 
> Cheers,
> Prabhakar


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research