On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:01:39 +0200
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > {error,warn}_report_once() are a special case of the new functions
> > and can simply switch to them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/qemu/error-report.h | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/qemu/error-report.h b/include/qemu/error-report.h
> > index e415128ac4..918cb936d8 100644
> > --- a/include/qemu/error-report.h
> > +++ b/include/qemu/error-report.h
> > @@ -53,32 +53,26 @@ bool warn_report_once_cond(bool *printed, const char
> > *fmt, ...)
> > * Similar to error_report(), except it prints the message just once.
> > * Return true when it prints, false otherwise.
> > */
> > -#define error_report_once(fmt, ...) \
> > - ({ \
> > - static bool print_once_; \
> > - bool ret_print_once_ = !print_once_; \
> > - \
> > - if (!print_once_) { \
> > - print_once_ = true; \
> > - error_report(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > - } \
> > - unlikely(ret_print_once_); \
> > +#define error_report_once(fmt, ...) \
> > + ({ \
> > + static bool print_once_; \
> > + bool ret_print_once_ = \
> > + error_report_once_cond(&print_once_, \
> > + fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > + unlikely(ret_print_once_); \
> > })
>
> Do we still need @ret_print_once_?
>
> #define error_report_once(fmt, ...) \
> ({ \
> static bool print_once_; \
> unlikely(error_report_once_cond(&print_once_, \
> fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)); \
> })
>
> Or dispense with the unlikely:
>
> #define error_report_once(fmt, ...) \
> ({ \
> static bool print_once_; \
> error_report_once_cond(&print_once_, \
> fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> })
>
> Got a preference?
I think we can get rid of the unlikely().
Will you make these changes yourself, or should I respin?
