linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] ring-buffer: fix printk output

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:43:59 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ring-buffer: fix printk output


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:48:19 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > -	printk_once(KERN_WARNING "Tracing recursion: depth[%d]:"
> > +	printk_once(KERN_WARNING "Tracing recursion: depth[%ld]:"
> 
> hrmph.  I didn't know that printk_once() existed, and I should 
> have known.  I wonder how many other people don't know.

Was posted to linux-next@...r.kernel.org.

> Should it use unlikely()?

Not really. Any printk_once() usage site is an 'unlikely' branch 
already in most cases. Double unlikely just spreads the instructions 
needlessly. The condition that _leads_ to a printk_once() should be 
an unlikely().

	Ingo
--
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/