Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:32:15 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.5.9 remove warnings |
| |
Keith Owens wrote: > > ... > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static inline void __unhash_process(stru > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock); > } > write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > - if (unlikely(proc_dentry)) { > + if (unlikely(proc_dentry != NULL)) { > shrink_dcache_parent(proc_dentry); > dput(proc_dentry); > }
Is it not possible to fix it for all time?
--- linux-2.5.9/include/linux/compiler.h Sun Apr 14 15:45:08 2002 +++ 25/include/linux/compiler.h Tue Apr 23 11:27:37 2002 @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ #define __builtin_expect(x, expected_value) (x) #endif -#define likely(x) __builtin_expect((x),1) -#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect((x),0) +#define likely(x) __builtin_expect((x) != 0, 1) +#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect((x) != 0, 0) /* This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc shouldn't recognize the original var, and make assumptions about it */ (Interestingly, this patch shrinks my kernel by 32 bytes. hmm.)
BTW, it would be very useful if someone could invert the sense of `likely' and `unlikely', so they always say the *wrong* thing, and then actually demonstrate some real-world slowdown. coz if this can't be done, why are we putting up with the visual clutter?
- - 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/
| |