Re: [PATCH 3/8] staging: erofs: add error handling for xattr submodule

[Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>]

Hi Dan,

On 2018/8/13 20:40, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:17:27PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>> @@ -294,8 +322,11 @@ static int inline_getxattr(struct inode *inode, struct getxattr_iter *it)
>>>>  		ret = xattr_foreach(&it->it, &find_xattr_handlers, &remaining);
>>>>  		if (ret >= 0)
>>>>  			break;
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (unlikely(ret != -ENOATTR))	/* -ENOMEM, -EIO, etc. */
>>> I have held off commenting on all the likely/unlikely annotations we
>>> are adding because I don't know what the fast paths are in this code.
>>> However, this is clearly an error path here, not on a fast path.
>>>
>>> Generally the rule on likely/unlikely is that they hurt readability so
>>> we should only add them if it makes a difference in benchmarking.
>>>
>> In my opinion, return values other than 0 and ENOATTR(ENODATA) rarely happens,
>> it should be in the slow path...
>>
> What I'm trying to say is please stop adding so many likely/unlikely
> annotations.  You should only add them if you have the benchmark data to
> show the it really is required.
> 
> 
OK, I'll follow your suggestion.

I could say it is my personal code tendency(style).
If you don't like it/think them useless, I will remove them all. 

Thanks for your suggestion.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> regards,
> dan carpenter
>