Messages in this thread | | | From | Oliver Neukum <> | Subject | Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 7/9] USB usbfs: destroy submitted urbs only on the disconnected interface | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:08:52 +0200 |
| |
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 10:47 schrieb Duncan Sands: > > > Hi Oliver, I thought you meant that CONFIG_EMBEDDED made WARN_ON go > > > away (or something like that). If you just mean that it is easy to > > > redefine WARN_ON by hand, then all I can say is: it is also easy to > > > redefine warn by hand! Anyway, I made you the following patch: > > > > Yes, but I don't trust gcc to optimise away the 'if' if you redefine > > warn(). > > The "if" cannot be optimized away for the case in point, because it > does something (clears the bit) if it passes the test. If I used WARN_ON > then it would have to be WARN_ON(1) in the else branch of the if.
True. You should use BUG_ON(). If this ever happens the device tree is screwed. There's no use going on.
> > But there is another point. The embedded people deserve a single switch > > to remove assertion checks. The purpose of macros like WARN_ON() is > > easy and _central_ choice of debugging output vs. kernel size. > > This is not an argument against using USB's warn, it is an argument for > building warn on top of a centralized macro like WARN_ON or a friend.
It is an argument against USB making its own constructs. There's nothing terribly specific about USB that would justify it. If the usual debug statements are inadequate, improve them.
Regards Oliver
- 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/
| |