Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:14:21 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/2] clk: Use devm_add in managed functions |
| |
Hi Marc,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:01 AM Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> wrote: > On 27/02/2020 14:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:55 PM Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> wrote: > >> Using the helper produces simpler code, and smaller object size.
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-devres.c > >> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-devres.c
> >> @@ -128,30 +109,22 @@ static int devm_clk_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *data) > >> > >> void devm_clk_put(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk) > >> { > >> - int ret; > >> - > >> - ret = devres_release(dev, devm_clk_release, devm_clk_match, clk); > >> - > >> - WARN_ON(ret); > >> + WARN_ON(devres_release(dev, my_clk_put, devm_clk_match, clk)); > > > > Getting rid of "ret" is an unrelated change, which actually increases > > kernel size, as the WARN_ON() parameter is stringified for the warning > > message. > > Weird... Are you sure about that? I built the preprocessed file, > and it didn't appear to be so. > > #ifndef WARN_ON > #define WARN_ON(condition) ({ \ > int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \ > if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \ > __WARN(); \ > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \ > }) > #endif > > Maybe you were thinking of i915's WARN_ON? > > #define WARN_ON(x) WARN((x), "%s", "WARN_ON(" __stringify(x) ")")
Oops, you're right. I got trapped again by an override of a standard macro (IMHO this should be removed).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |