Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] block: introduce dma map backed bio type
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-nvme,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-media |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5/18/26 13:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 01:40:18PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> When that is really a performance critical path then you can use the likely() and unlikely() macros to give the compiler the hint which one to prefer. >> >> That might be more penalising than placing them in the right order, >> and it might be fine as it's new and all that, but it's not a clear >> cut as it's definitely not created to be a slow path. > > Yes. Whatever the caller is using at a given time is the fast path here, > and dynamic branch prediction in modern cpus handles this really well. > >> TBH, not sure >> why we're bike shedding such things, is it somewhere in the code >> style? > > It makes reading the code annoying, so it better have a good reason. > Now for a single conditional it's not much of an issue, but these > things tend to pile up and then start to get really annoying. > Always write your code the most straight forward way unless you > have a good reason not to. For me, having the most common case first is more natural and readable, but I'm going to flip it just to avoid spending more time here. -- Pavel Begunkov