Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932269AbWJEVnV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:43:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932255AbWJEVnM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:43:12 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:60113 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932271AbWJEVnE (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:43:04 -0400 Message-ID: <45257C65.3030600@goop.org> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:43:01 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: "Ananiev, Leonid I" , tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression References: <20061005143748.2f6594a2.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20061005143748.2f6594a2.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 821 Lines: 23 Andrew Morton wrote: > So how's this look? > Looks fine to me. Other than the general question of why WARN_ON* returns a value at all, and if so, does the final unlikely() really do anything. > I worry a bit that someone's hardware might go and prefetch that static > variable even when we didn't ask it to. Can that happen? > Sure, the CPU has the option, but if it goes around speculatively polluting its caches with unused stuff, it isn't going to perform very well in general. So presumably the CPU won't do it unless it really thinks it will help. J - 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/