Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2011 11:42:01 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] omap2/omapfb: make DBG() more resistant in if-else constructions | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:20, Niels de Vos <ndevos@redhat.com> wrote: > When DBG() is used in a simple if-else, the resulting code path > currently depends on the definition of DBG(). Inserting the statement in > a "do { ... } while (0)" prevents this possible misuse. > > Signed-off-by: Niels de Vos <ndevos@redhat.com>
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb.h > +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb.h > @@ -34,8 +34,10 @@ > #ifdef DEBUG > extern unsigned int omapfb_debug; > #define DBG(format, ...) \ > - if (omapfb_debug) \ > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "OMAPFB: " format, ## __VA_ARGS__) > + do { \ > + if (omapfb_debug) \ > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "OMAPFB: " format, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ > + while (0)
Where's the closing '}'?
> #else > #define DBG(format, ...)
BTW, no printf()-style format checking here.
> #endif
What about using the standard pr_debug()/dev_dbg() instead? With dynamic debug, it can be enabled at run time. As a bonus, you get printf()-style format checking if debugging is disabled.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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/
| |