Hi,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Duane Griffin wrote:
> On 10/07/07, Satyam Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > + /* Avoid taking lock and disabling interrupts unnecessarily */
> > + if (unlikely(list_empty(&target_list)))
> > + return;
>
> Is the unlikely a good idea here? Not having any targets may be
> unusual but it isn't ridiculous. It might even be a sensible default
> for distros.
Hmm, I put it in there because I expected that the user must have had
at least one target configured (added to target_list) if he's got the
module loaded/built-in (and netconsole registered), which is when this
function would be triggered anyway.
> My (very limited) understanding of unlikely is that it
> could impose a very large penalty in that case and would make a very
> marginal difference at best in the common case.
I wouldn't call it a large penalty, but yeah, probably the unlikely()
there isn't all that important either.
Satyam
-
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]
