Messages in this thread | | | From | Aaron Conole <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] printk: help pr_debug and pr_devel to optimize out arguments | Date | Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:13:26 -0500 |
| |
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes: > On Friday 04 December 2015 16:51:42 Aaron Conole wrote: >> --- a/include/linux/printk.h >> +++ b/include/linux/printk.h >> @@ -106,13 +106,14 @@ struct va_format { >> >> /* >> * Dummy printk for disabled debugging statements to use whilst maintaining >> - * gcc's format and side-effect checking. >> + * gcc's format checking. >> */ >> -static inline __printf(1, 2) >> -int no_printk(const char *fmt, ...) >> -{ >> - return 0; >> -} >> +#define no_printk(fmt, ...) \ >> +do { \ >> + if (0) { \ >> + printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ >> + } \ >> +} while (0) >> > > This change breaks compiling lib/842/, at least in some configurations: > > lib/842/842_decompress.c: In function '__do_index': > lib/842/842_decompress.c:205:12422: error: implicit declaration of function 'no_printk' > > Using a gcc style vararg macro instead of the C99 style makes it work, but > I don't know why the original version didn't work. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > diff --git a/include/linux/printk.h b/include/linux/printk.h > index cc3803a8f73e..4d1851a82254 100644 > --- a/include/linux/printk.h > +++ b/include/linux/printk.h > @@ -108,10 +108,10 @@ struct va_format { > * Dummy printk for disabled debugging statements to use whilst maintaining > * gcc's format checking. > */ > -#define no_printk(fmt, ...) \ > +#define no_printk(arg ...) \ > do { \ > if (0) { \ > - printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > + printk(arg); \ > } \ > } while (0) >
Ugh. Sorry about this; I thought I had compiled everywhere but I guess not.
| |