Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:11:10 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 13/17] Use WARN() in drivers/base/ |
| |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:54:09 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:20:11 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:53:07 -0700 Arjan van de Ven > > <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>Index: > > > linux.trees.git/drivers/base/core.c > > > > A number of these patches had mangled signed-off-by: lines. > > > > Please try to be consistent in the presence and placement of the ^--- > > line at the end of the changelog. > > > > I verified that all three copies of "Use WARN() in fs/" were the same. > > > > I've decided that I don't like the whole thing :( This: > > > > #define WARN(condition, format...) > > ({ \ int __ret_warn_on > > = !!(condition); \ if > > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \ > > __WARN_printf(format); \ > > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \ }) > > > > is not a WARN(). It is a WARN_ON() function. The use of this name > > now leaves us no sensible name under which to implement > > > > I'm totally open to a better name. > Having a condition in there is really nice, it means we can fold the > if() into it in many cases. Just like BUG_ON() did.
Alexey's WARN_IF() would suit, I guess. Plain old "WARN" is just wrong here, alas.
I can just edit all the diffs if we're all OK with that.
I don't suppose there's any way of tricking the preprocessor into supporting
WARN_ON(foo == 42);
as well as
WARN_ON(foo == 42, "bite me!");
| |