From: David Hildenbrand [...

quoted

This should be likely() instead of unlikely(), no?
I'd rather write this

	if (pagefault_disabled())
 		return;
	__might_sleep(file, line, 0);

and leave the likely stuff completely away.

Makes perfect sense!

From my experience of getting (an older version of) gcc to emit
'correctly' statically predicted branches I found that code that
looks like (I don't think return/goto make any difference):

	If (unlikely(condition)) {
		code;
	}
	more_code;

is compile with a forwards conditional branch (ie ignoring the unlikely()).
Similarly 'if () continue' is likely to generate a 'predicted taken'
backwards conditional branch.

To get the desired effect you need a non-empty 'else' part, an assembler
comment will suffice, eg: asm volatile("# comment").

	David