Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:02:13 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 13/17] Use WARN() in drivers/base/ |
| |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:51:05 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:11:10 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > 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!"); > > > > after reading preprocessor docs from gcc and trying some things: > We can do this. It comes at a price: the price is a blank line in the > WARN trace for the "no printk comments" case, and we lose the ability > to override the printk level. (which you can argue is a feature by just > setting it to KERN_WARNING). > > (and some interesting but otherwise non-harmful preprocessor stuff in > headers)
the blank line: might be avoidable by doing some extra work at runtime to recognise its presence?
overriding facility level: doesn't sound very useful, as WARN()'s stack-trace's facility level is not controllable.
> Is this is price worth paying to not have a second macro?
Dunno, how ugly is the patch?
It would be rather nice to not go and fatten the interface. Would there be additional text or data size costs?
| |