Re: [PATCH] updated low-latency zap_page_range

[Andrew Morton]

Robert Love wrote:
> 
> ...
> I hope it compiles to nothing!  There is a false in an if... oh, wait,
> to preserve possible side-effects gcc will keep the need_resched() call
> so I guess we should reorder it as:
> 
>         if (preempt_count() == 1 && need_resched())
> 
> Then we get "if (0 && ..)" which should hopefully be evaluated away.
> Then the inline is empty and nothing need be done.

I think someone changed the definition of preempt_count()
while you weren't looking.

Plus it's used as an lvalue :(

-