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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
