Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6.0-test8 __might_sleep warnings on boot | From | Roland Dreier <> | Date | 19 Oct 2003 12:17:23 -0700 |
| |
>>>>> " " == Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2003, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > - if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) { > > + /* Don't print warnings until system_running is set. This avoids > > + spurious warnings during boot before local_irq_enable() and > > + init_idle(). */ > > + if (system_running && (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled())) { > > Wouldn't this : > > if ((in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) && system_running) > > be slightly more efficient? The reason I say that is that I would assume > that the chance of (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) being false is greater > than the chance of !system_running - if that is so, then reordering the if > will allow it to break out early more often...
Yes, I think you're right about the efficiency. However, I didn't think this was a performance-critical code path (especially since it is only turned on by a debugging config option), and the way I wrote it matched the way I was thinking about the test ("If the system is running, then check if we're in atomic or have irqs disabled"). But I don't think it matters much either way.
Thanks, Roland - 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/
| |