On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 00:54 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > I'd say that the general rule should > be "don't check for NULL first unless you *know* the pointer will be NULL > >50% of the time"... How about running the same tests but using likely()/unlikely() for the '1 in 50' cases? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
- From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
- From: linux-os <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
- From: linux-os <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
- From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Fix preemption off of irq context on x86-64 with PREEMPT_BKL
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
- Index(es):
 |