![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
MOLNAR Ingo <mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu> said: > On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Helge Hafting wrote: > > >Jauder Ho wrote: > > >> well actually if you look there is a print statement that says "Tell > > >> DaveM that he fucked up" so there is at least one print statement > > >> that I can see. > > The correct action here would be to fix whatever it is DaveM has fucked > > up. Then remove the no longer needed printk(). The idea was to complain _if_ DaveM had done so, and the code detected that. > if you actually read the source, it is very likely that say EGCS optimizes > that panic away completely, because it's impossible to reach it. Doesn't matter: If it's unreachable, the printk(9) goes, the string stays ;-) -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||