Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:29 -0700
> Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps the `static int __warn_once' is getting put in the same cacheline
> > > as some frequently-modified thing.   Perhaps try marking that as __read_mostly?
> >
> > I've tried marking static int __warn_once as __read_mostly.  However, it
> > did not help with reducing the cache miss :(
> >
> > So I would suggest reversing the "Let WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE return the
> > condition" patch.  It has just been added 3 days ago so reversing it
> > should not be a problem.
>
>
> Not yet, please.  This is presently a mystery, and we need to work out
> what's going on.

Still, it seems kind of odd to add this IMO. Especially the WARN_ON_ONCE
makes the if statement less readable.

  if (WARN_ON_ONCE(blah)) {
  }

What does that mean? Without looking at the implementation, that says
the condition is true at most once, when the warning is printed.

What's wrong with adding WARN and WARN_ONCE, and eating the single extra
line? You're always telling people to do that with assignments (which I
agree with, but are _more_ readable than this WARN_ON_ONCE thing).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/