Hi, On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Duane Griffin wrote: > On 10/07/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + /* Avoid taking lock and disabling interrupts unnecessarily */ > > + if (unlikely(list_empty(&target_list))) > > + return; > > Is the unlikely a good idea here? Not having any targets may be > unusual but it isn't ridiculous. It might even be a sensible default > for distros.
Hmm, I put it in there because I expected that the user must have had at least one target configured (added to target_list) if he's got the module loaded/built-in (and netconsole registered), which is when this function would be triggered anyway. > My (very limited) understanding of unlikely is that it > could impose a very large penalty in that case and would make a very > marginal difference at best in the common case. I wouldn't call it a large penalty, but yeah, probably the unlikely() there isn't all that important either. Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
