Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:35:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] bug.h: add empty warn_on_slowpath() for CONFIG_BUG=n |
| |
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:23:38 -0500 (CDT) Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
> --- Original Message --- > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:33:39 -0700 > > Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > > > > > Add an empty function for warn_on_slowpath() when CONFIG_BUG=n so that > > > this build error does not happen: > > > > > > linux-next-20080701/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c: In function 'acpi_ut_error': > > > linux-next-20080701/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c:1028: error: implicit declaration of function 'warn_on_slowpath' > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> > > > --- > > > include/asm-generic/bug.h | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > --- linux-next-20080701.orig/include/asm-generic/bug.h > > > +++ linux-next-20080701/include/asm-generic/bug.h > > > @@ -81,4 +81,9 @@ extern void warn_on_slowpath(const char > > > # define WARN_ON_SMP(x) do { } while (0) > > > #endif > > > > > > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > > +static inline void warn_on_slowpath(const char *file, const int line) > > > +{ } > > > +#endif > > > + > > > #endif > > > > > > > This looks like a needed-in-mainline fix? or is there something > > in linux-next which causes the bug? > > Looks like only linux-next has this code: > > > > linux-next-20080701/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c: In function 'acpi_ut_error': > > > linux-next-20080701/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c:1028: error: implicit declaration of function 'warn_on_slowpath' >
err...
commit 9e030ab0bffdc8b6d8be663b639bd5e2374537f0 Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Date: Tue Jun 24 22:47:09 2008 -0400
ACPI: add standard linux WARN_ON() output to ACPI errors and exceptions
In linux-2.6.27, we expect WARN() with printk semantics to become available, and we'll be able to simplify this code.
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c b/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c index 1f057b7..0a340b0 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c @@ -1028,6 +1028,7 @@ acpi_ut_error(char *module_name, u32 line_number, char *format, ...) { va_list args; + warn_on_slowpath(module_name, line_number); acpi_os_printf("ACPI Error (%s-%04d): ", module_name, line_number); va_start(args, format); @@ -1042,6 +1043,7 @@ acpi_ut_exception(char *module_name, { va_list args; + warn_on_slowpath(module_name, line_number); acpi_os_printf("ACPI Exception (%s-%04d): %s, ", module_name, line_number, acpi_format_exception(status));
Was there any particular reason for doing it this way? It's really quite wrong, given that an architecture can provide its own definition of WARN_ON() and __WARN() and might not even implement warn_on_slowpath() at all.
The usual way of doing this is to go in via the front door: WARN_ON(1).
| |