Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:52:21 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators |
| |
Hugh Dickins wrote: > > At one stage I was adding unlikelies to all the p??_bads, then it > seemed more sensible to hide that in a new macro (which of course > must do the none and bad tests inline, before going off to the function). >
Yeah that sounds OK. I think (un)likely can propagate through inline functions too, if that's any help to you.
> > We could at little cost. But I think if these messages come up at all, > they're likely to come up in clumps, where the backtrace won't actually > be giving any interesting info, and the quantity of them be a nuisance > itself. I'd rather leave it to the next person who gets the error and > wants the backtrace to add it. >
You're probably right - I know when I see them (from my hacking up the code) they usually come in clumps :P
Nick
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |