Re: [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS

From: Dave Young
Date: Wed Mar 12 2008 - 20:44:58 EST


On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
>
>
> Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Don't check condition twice, change WARN_ON(condition) to WARN_ON(1)
> > Thanks Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@xxxxxxxxx> for pointing out
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > 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))

Looks concise.
Should I update the third time?
--
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/