Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> It will mean more code on architectures which have a
> conditional-trap-on-nonzero instruction, such as powerpc, since the
> compiler will generate instructions to evaluate !!x.  But I don't see
> any reason why ret_warn_on couldn't be a long.

Umm. The WARN_ON() might actually get a "long long" value for all we know. 
Ie it's perfectly possible that the WARN_ON might look like

	/* Must not have high bits on */
	WARN_ON(offset & 0xffffffff00000000);

which on a 32-bit pcc would apparently do the wrong thing entirely as it 
stands now. No?

I think I'll commit the !!(x) version, and you guys can try to figure out 
what the right thing is long-term. For all I know, the proper solution is 
to just revert the whole mess, and *not* make WARN_ON() return a value at 
all, since that seems to be the fundamental mistake here.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/