> > >> well actually if you look there is a print statement that says "Tell
> > >> DaveM that he fucked up" so there is at least one print statement
> > >> that I can see.
> > The correct action here would be to fix whatever it is DaveM has fucked
> > up. Then remove the no longer needed printk().
The idea was to complain _if_ DaveM had done so, and the code detected that.
> if you actually read the source, it is very likely that say EGCS optimizes
> that panic away completely, because it's impossible to reach it.
Doesn't matter: If it's unreachable, the printk(9) goes, the string stays ;-)
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/