On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:57 PM Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:45:24PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote: > > trace_printk is only meant as a debugging tool, and should never be > > compiled into production code without source code changes, as > > indicated by the warning that shows up on boot if any trace_printk > > is called: > > ** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE ** > > ** ** > > ** trace_printk() being used. Allocating extra memory. ** > > ** ** > > ** This means that this is a DEBUG kernel and it is ** > > ** unsafe for production use. ** > > > > If this option is set to n, the kernel will generate a build-time > > error if trace_printk is used. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <[email protected]> > > include/linux/kernel.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > > kernel/trace/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h > > index 196607aaf653082..b6addc6ba669e85 100644 > > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h > > @@ -721,10 +721,15 @@ do { > > \ > > #define trace_printk(fmt, ...) \ > > do { \ > > char _______STR[] = __stringify((__VA_ARGS__)); \ > > + \ > > + __static_assert( \ > > + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK),\ > > + "trace_printk called, please enable > > CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK."); \ > > + \ > > Why __static_assert not normal static_assert?
Oh, I misread the macro code (and didn't read the comment above in include/linux/build_bug.h). static_assert would be just fine. > > Jason
