![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||