LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS
@ 2008-03-12  1:09 Dave Young
  2008-03-12 13:47 ` Johannes Weiner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dave Young @ 2008-03-12  1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: akpm; +Cc: linux-kernel, Marcin Slusarz, paulmck

Don't check condition twice, change WARN_ON(condition) to WARN_ON(1)
Thanks Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com> for pointing out

Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>

---
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);				\
 })
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS
  2008-03-12  1:09 [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS Dave Young
@ 2008-03-12 13:47 ` Johannes Weiner
  2008-03-13  0:44   ` Dave Young
  2008-03-13  4:47   ` Linus Torvalds
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Weiner @ 2008-03-12 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Young; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, Marcin Slusarz, paulmck

Hi Dave,

Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> writes:

> Don't check condition twice, change WARN_ON(condition) to WARN_ON(1)
> Thanks Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com> for pointing out
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> 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))

?

	Hannes

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS
  2008-03-12 13:47 ` Johannes Weiner
@ 2008-03-13  0:44   ` Dave Young
  2008-03-13  4:47   ` Linus Torvalds
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dave Young @ 2008-03-13  0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, Marcin Slusarz, paulmck

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS
  2008-03-12 13:47 ` Johannes Weiner
  2008-03-13  0:44   ` Dave Young
@ 2008-03-13  4:47   ` Linus Torvalds
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2008-03-13  4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Weiner; +Cc: Dave Young, akpm, linux-kernel, Marcin Slusarz, paulmck



On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> What's wrong with:
> 
> #define WARN_ON_SECS(condition, secs) \
> 	WARN_ON(condition && __ratelimit(secs * HZ, 1))

Add parenthesis around the arguments, please.

		Linus

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2008-03-13  4:48 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-03-12  1:09 [PATCH -mm] do not check condition twice in WARN_ON_SECS Dave Young
2008-03-12 13:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-03-13  0:44   ` Dave Young
2008-03-13  4:47   ` Linus Torvalds

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).