Re: [patch 2/17] Add a WARN() macro that acts like WARN_ON()+printk

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:00:05 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 09:40 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > +#ifndef WARN
> > +#define WARN(condition, format...)
> > ({					\
> > +	int __ret_warn_on
> > = !!(condition);				\
> > +	if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on))					\
> > +
> > __WARN_printf(format);					\
> > +
> > unlikely(__ret_warn_on);					\
> > +}) +#endif
> > +
> 
> If all current uses of WARN are going to change, perhaps
> adding an argument for KERN_<level> or removing the
> KERN_<level> prefixes and standardizing on a single
> KERN_<level> (KERN_WARNING?) is appropriate.

I looked at this and there are various levels in use today, I don't
think we can standardize on one unfortunately.
I don't think there's a real problem; WARN() really acts like printk...
all the way.



If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/