At 12/06/2016 10:51 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from backtrace one.
#define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (long)(c))
#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
(long)(c))
#define ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
(long)!(c))
#define BUG() assert_trace(NULL, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, 1)
#else
#define BUG_ON(c) assert(!(c))
#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
(long)(c))
#define ASSERT(c) assert(!(c))
#define BUG() assert(0)
Condition of BUG_ON/ASSERT/BUG are all logical notted for
DISABLE_BACKTRACE.
While WARN_ON() of both branch are the same condition.
WARN_ON is using warning_trace as opposed to assert, and that is the
reason it is not notted.
This seems quite confusing to me.
Any idea to make it more straightforward?
I just kept it the same as before. warning_trace was using an extra
variable, trace, which was not needed because the print_trace was
already in ifndefs.
I mean, better make the condition the same for both BUG/BUG_ON/ASSERT.
So that we don't need to manually logical not the condition.
For example:
#define ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,（long）(c))
and
#define ASSERT(c) assert((c))
This looks much more straightforward, and easier to expose bug at review
time.
Thanks,
Qu
If you are talking about keeping WARN_ON outside of ifndef, yes, that
will reduce the code further by another line.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
