[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:00:11AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Then we have that in common. While reading the code and its history, I
> was worried that the justification to add this warning in the first
> place was technically weak. Not every coding error must automatically
> translate to a patch to make the code robust against said error.
> Sometimes you just have to admit that you did not pay attention as you
> should have, fix your mistake, possibly document it for others, and
> move on. Otherwise we end up with slow bloated code.

That WARN_ON() is a form of documentation.

And if you care about performance for your code path, hide it under some
CONFIG_*_DEBUG, but in general WARN_ON() isn't terribly expensive
(depending entirely on the complexity of the condition of course).

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-25 11:29    [W:0.071 / U:1.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site