Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	benh@kernel.crashing.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:52:21 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <421E5AA5.3040100@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502242224070.14886@goblin.wat.veritas.com>

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