On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > are we seeing a pattern here? We could stick the unlikely inside
> > > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() itself. That's a little bit sleazy though - there might
> > > be future callsites at which it is likely, who knows?
> >
> > Thought about that myself but then there would be a weird side effect to
> > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR().
>
> True, but I suspect such a side-effect to actually matter only for the
> BUG_ON case, where introducing the unlikely() would mean the output from
> the show_registers() dump during the BUG() would show a not-useful-at-all
> %%eax == 0x0000001 value, but only if CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY=y, admittedly.
Hang on, BUG_ON() already uses unlikely anyway. And I've just verified
from a testcase that gcc doesn't get confused by unlikely(unlikely(...))
kind of code, so we're in the clear, I think.
-
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]
