Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:32:33 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: patch for 2.4.0 disable printk |
| |
Stefani Seibold wrote: > The inline function is the best choice, because it it full compatible to old > old printk. No side effects are expeted.
What is the difference? I can't think of any difference between:
#define printk(format, args...) ((int) 0)
and:
static inline int printk_inline (void) { return 0; } #define printk(format, args...) (printk_inline ())
If you wanted to be fully compatible in the sense of evaluating the printk arguments, in case those have side effects, there would be:
#define printk(format, args...) ((0 , ## args), (int) 0)
By the way, CONFIG_NO_PRINTK or CONFIG_DISABLE_PRINTK would be better names. CONFIG_PRINTK suggests that enabling that option enabled printk.
enjoy, -- Jamie
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |