Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:51:43 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/17] Add a WARN() macro that acts like WARN_ON()+printk |
| |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:19:49 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:40:23 -0700 Arjan van de Ven > <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> > > > > Add a WARN() macro that acts like WARN_ON(), with the added feature > > that it takes a printk like argument that is printed as part of the > > warning message. > > > > Apart from a little whitespace tweak, this is identical to what I > already had. > > > +#define WARN_ONCE(condition, format...) > > ({ \ > > + static int > > __warned; \ > > + int __ret_warn_once > > = !!(condition); \ > > + \ > > + if > > (unlikely(__ret_warn_once)) \ > > + if (WARN(!__warned, format)) > > \ > > + __warned = > > 1; \ > > + unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \ > > +}) > > Except it adds this operation, without describing it at all in the > changelog. > > Is this some brainfart, or am I missing something? I can see some > sense in a WARN_ONCE(format...), but not in a WARN_ONCE() which takes > a `condition' and should be called WARN_ON_ONCE(), which we already > have.
WARN_ON_ONCE() doesn't take printk arguments. So WARN_ONCE() is WAR_ON_ONCE() with printk arguments...
-- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |