From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:39:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <452848B6.5060401@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1160267327.2368.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-08 0:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-04 16:57 [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-04 17:28 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-08 0:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-10-08 0:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-10-10 21:05 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-10 21:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-10-10 21:41 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-10 22:59 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-06 4:06 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-04 21:55 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-05 21:37 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-05 21:43 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-05 21:52 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-05 22:02 ` Herbert Xu
2006-10-05 22:40 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-05 21:51 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-06 16:11 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-03 23:04 Tim Chen
2006-10-03 23:19 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 0:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-03 23:47 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 4:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-04 13:21 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 16:30 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-04 16:22 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 17:34 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-04 20:43 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-10 1:09 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-10 13:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-10-10 15:41 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-10 20:03 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-04 0:07 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-03 23:42 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 0:09 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-04 1:14 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-04 1:47 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-04 3:24 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-04 3:32 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-04 16:47 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-04 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-05 8:13 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-05 8:36 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-05 21:31 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-05 21:01 ` Tim Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=452848B6.5060401@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox