[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090929135947.7ccc3d8c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:59:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rolandd@...co.com, cesarb@...arb.net,
dwalker@...o99.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for condition
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:25:12 -0300
Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net> wrote:
> Use the type bool for __ret_warn_once and __ret_warn_on, instead of int
> with a double negation. This matches the intent of the code better and
> should allow the compiler to generate better code, like in commit
> 70867453092297be9afb2249e712a1f960ec0a09. However, some versions of gcc
> seems to pessimize the code instead when the condition is not trivial.
>
> Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>
> ---
> arch/avr32/include/asm/bug.h | 2 +-
> arch/blackfin/include/asm/bug.h | 2 +-
> arch/parisc/include/asm/bug.h | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h | 2 +-
> arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h | 2 +-
> arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h | 4 ++--
> include/asm-generic/bug.h | 12 ++++++------
There's a small reject in include/asm-generic/bug.h against current
mainline, easily fixed.
It would be nice if we had some accurate numbers on the kernel size
reductions from this, please. I assume that the patch is still of
benefit in 2.6.32-rc1(2?), but it's always good to confirm.
--
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