Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161022AbWJDAhG (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:37:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161030AbWJDAhG (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:37:06 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:7940 "EHLO mga09.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161022AbWJDAhB (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:37:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,252,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="140061607:sNHT3731652393" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression From: Tim Chen Reply-To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com In-Reply-To: <4522FB04.1080001@goop.org> References: <1159916644.8035.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4522FB04.1080001@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:43 -0700 Message-Id: <1159919263.8035.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 720 Lines: 17 On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:06 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > How does the generated code change? Doesn't evaluating the condition > multiple times have the potential to cause problems? > I think if the condition changes between two evaluations, we do have a problem with my fix. I don't have a better idea to avoid using a local variable to store the condition. I think we should at least reverse the WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE patch if a better way cannot be found. Tim - 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/