Re: [patch 13/17] Use WARN() in drivers/base/

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:54:09 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:20:11 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:53:07 -0700 Arjan van de Ven
> > <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Index:
> > > linux.trees.git/drivers/base/core.c
> > 
> > A number of these patches had mangled signed-off-by: lines.
> > 
> > Please try to be consistent in the presence and placement of the ^---
> > line at the end of the changelog.
> > 
> > I verified that all three copies of "Use WARN() in fs/" were the same.
> > 
> > I've decided that I don't like the whole thing :(  This:
> > 
> > #define WARN(condition, format...)
> > ({					\ int __ret_warn_on
> > = !!(condition);				\ if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on))					\
> > __WARN_printf(format);					\
> > unlikely(__ret_warn_on);					\ })
> > 
> > is not a WARN().  It is a WARN_ON() function.  The use of this name
> > now leaves us no sensible name under which to implement
> > 
> 
> I'm totally open to a better name.
> Having a condition in there is really nice, it means we can fold the
> if() into it in many cases. Just like BUG_ON() did.

Alexey's WARN_IF() would suit, I guess.  Plain old "WARN" is just wrong
here, alas.

I can just edit all the diffs if we're all OK with that.



I don't suppose there's any way of tricking the preprocessor into
supporting

	WARN_ON(foo == 42);

as well as

	WARN_ON(foo == 42, "bite me!");


--
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/