[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pru0oxyv.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:47:52 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS
Hi Dave,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> writes:
> Don't check condition twice, change WARN_ON(condition) to WARN_ON(1)
> Thanks Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> for pointing out
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
>
> ---
> include/asm-generic/bug.h | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -upr linux/include/asm-generic/bug.h linux.new/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> --- linux/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2008-03-12 08:45:08.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux.new/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2008-03-12 09:04:07.000000000 +0800
> @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ extern void warn_on_slowpath(const char
> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
> if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \
> if (__ratelimit(secs * HZ, 1)) \
> - WARN_ON(condition); \
> + WARN_ON(1); \
> + unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \
> })
What's wrong with:
#define WARN_ON_SECS(condition, secs) \
WARN_ON(condition && __ratelimit(secs * HZ, 1))
?
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists