On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > are we seeing a pattern here? We could stick the unlikely inside > > > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR() itself. That's a little bit sleazy though - there > > > might > > > be future callsites at which it is likely, who knows? > > > > Thought about that myself but then there would be a weird side effect to > > ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(). > > True, but I suspect such a side-effect to actually matter only for the > BUG_ON case, where introducing the unlikely() would mean the output from > the show_registers() dump during the BUG() would show a not-useful-at-all > %%eax == 0x0000001 value, but only if CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY=y, admittedly. Hang on, BUG_ON() already uses unlikely anyway. And I've just verified from a testcase that gcc doesn't get confused by unlikely(unlikely(...)) kind of code, so we're in the clear, I think. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
