Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for boolean flag | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:52:16 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 12:56 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > Daniel Walker escreveu: > > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 10:53 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > >> #define > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(condition) ({ \ > >> - static int __warned; \ > >> + static bool __warned; \ > >> int __ret_warn_once = !!(condition); \ > > > > Could __ret_warn_once be bool also ? It looks like just another > > conditional variable.. > > Yes, it could (as long as either it is converted back to int in the > return of the macro, or all users do not care about the macro's return > type). However, the justification used for the printk_once patch (and > this WARN_ONCE patch) does not apply directly anymore, since the code is > different (to start with, it is not a static variable).
I did a couple kernel builds to test this on a small normal config,
vmlinux.base-line text data bss dec hex filename 6718958 497200 1082460 8298618 7ea07a vmlinux.base-line
vmlinux.one-bool <-- Your patch text data bss dec hex filename 6718590 497232 1082292 8298114 7e9e82 vmlinux.one-bool
vmlinux.all-bool-converted text data bss dec hex filename 6718506 497232 1082292 8298030 7e9e2e vmlinux.all-converted
your changes drops the size 368 bytes, and if you convert the other conditionals it drops it by another 84 bytes. Not much more, but it's something.
So I think Rolands original reasoning still holds.. As far as people needing an int output from WARN_ON() , I'm not sure that's happening anyplace .. I can't imagine a sane usage for that..
Daniel
| |