Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 00:34:36 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.27-pre2: tg3: there's no WARN_ON in 2.4 |
| |
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 12:07:44AM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <20040506121302.GI9636@fs.tum.de> > By author: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > > > > >yep. Either we backport WARN_ON ;) or simply do the attached. > > > > > > > >--- old/drivers/net/tg3.c 2004-05-04 14:30:22.000000000 +0200 > > > >+++ new/drivers/net/tg3.c 2004-05-04 14:49:58.000000000 +0200 > > > >@@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > > > > #define TG3_TSO_SUPPORT 0 > > > > #endif > > > > > > > >+#ifndef WARN_ON > > > >+#define WARN_ON(x) do { } while (0) > > > >+#endif > > > > > > Related but off topic. Do people find the ab#define WARN_ON(x) > > > a macro acceptable? The fact is that not mentioning 'x' means any > > > side-effects are not executed, meaning the author must take special > > > care when using this macro. > > >... > > > > Do not use code with side effects in BUG_ON and WARN_ON. > > > > Why not use the much simpler: > > #ifndef WARN_ON > # define WARN_ON(x) ((void)(x)) > #endif > > Preserves side effects and everything.
AFAIR, the -tiny tree already implements some kind of empty BUG/PAGE_BUG/WARN_ON macros.
When optimizing for size that way, your suggestion would result in bigger code.
And after a quick view, I haven't seen any WARN_ON users in 2.6 that seem to rely on side effects.
> -hpa
cu Adrian
-- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |