Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6.0-test8 __might_sleep warnings on boot

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2003, Roland Dreier wrote:

> -	if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) {
> +	/* Don't print warnings until system_running is set.  This avoids
> +	   spurious warnings during boot before local_irq_enable() and
> +	   init_idle(). */
> +	if (system_running && (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled())) {

Wouldn't this :

if ((in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) && system_running)

be slightly more efficient?   The reason I say that is that I would assume
that the chance of (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) being false is greater
than the chance of !system_running - if that is so, then reordering the if
will allow it to break out early more often...

Is that a completely rediculous thing to do?


Regards,

Jesper Juhl
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/