> > Yup, missed that change in the patch. In fact, I even missed the > > existence of a WARN_ONCE that takes those text arguments... baaaah. I > > suppose I should try to read more of lkml :-) > > But don't expect to see them on powerpc, they never make it to the > console. Allright, that's the problem with our implementation of WARN using a conditional trap, we don't carry all the variable arguments for the printf over. I'm tempted to turn our implementation back to normal C code with an if and a branch out of line, but Michael seems to say that even with appropriate use of unlikely() etc... gcc decides to generate the worst possible code every single time ... <rant> such as always inlining the whole printf mumbo jumbo and having the not-warning case branch over it, not -all- CPUs have good branch prediction dude, so the icache is going to scream but gcc folks know better of course.... </rant> Anyway, I'll see Michael what exactly the situation is here and if we can fix it a way or another. Ben. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
