Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Steven Rostedt wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114935833125957&w=2

That was different, since we were putting a likely condition in an
unlikely(). But I still don't see why we would ever want to test
__warn_once before the condition, since it doesn't save on anything and
just adds extra work.  I don't see the savings.

Also, in that thread you cite (__warn_once && (condition)) is flat-out wrong, because condition may have a side-effect. There are plenty of places in the code which use BUG_ON or WARN_ON as a general error checking mechanism which expect the condition to be always evaluated once; WARN_ON_ONCE should be the same.

Personally I think it is poor style, but there you are.

   J
-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux