Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114935833125957&w=2
>
> That was different, since we were putting a likely condition in an
> unlikely(). But I still don't see why we would ever want to test
> __warn_once before the condition, since it doesn't save on anything and
> just adds extra work.  I don't see the savings.
>   

Also, in that thread you cite (__warn_once && (condition)) is flat-out 
wrong, because condition may have a side-effect.  There are plenty of 
places in the code which use BUG_ON or WARN_ON as a general error 
checking mechanism which expect the condition to be always evaluated 
once; WARN_ON_ONCE should be the same.

Personally I think it is poor style, but there you are.

   J
-
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/