Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype.

[Rakib Mullick]

On 11/11/10, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/11/10, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with
>> WARN not enabled, is this a real issue?
>
> I'm trying to find out the config, which causes the warning (it gets
> overwritten). Not all config produces the warning. Maybe - it was a
> randconfig, which generates the warning. I'll again try some
> randconfig and will try to find the config which generates the
> warning. If I find something I'll notice. But, I think the issue is
> real.
>
CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y and CONFIG_BUG=n produces that warning, in that case
#ifndef WARN is defined as follows:

#define WARN(condition, format...) ({					\
	int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);				\
	unlikely(__ret_warn_on);					\
})

from above we can see, format isn't used. sysfs_pathname is passed as
format when called from sysfs_add_one through WARN(). Since format
isn't used, that's why we're having that problem. Am I right? Should I
create a patch to split up WARN() and calling sysfs_pathname ? Or is
there any better way?


thanks,
rakib
--
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/