Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [tip:core/urgent] WARN_ON_SMP(): Add comment to explain ({0;}) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:09:00 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 07:58 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/28/2011 07:56 AM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > >> > >> What the heck is wrong with the idiomatic and non-gcc-extension-using: > >> > >> ((void)0) > >> > >> ? > > > > AFAIK you cannot use it within an if-statement. > > > > OK, fair enough.
If people hate the ({0;}) so much, we could replace it with:
static inline int _WARN_ON_SMP(void) { return 0; } #define WARN_ON_SMP(x) _WARN_ON_SMP()
That would pretty much do the same thing.
o Keeps the parameters from being evaluated, as they may not be defined for SMP
o Can be used as a standalone statement without gcc complaining
o Can be used within an if condition.
Geeze, I never expected such a fuss over a simple change ;)
-- Steve
| |