Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-generic/bug.h | 17 +++++++++++------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc6/include/asm-generic/bug.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.24-rc6.orig/include/asm-generic/bug.h
+++ linux-2.6.24-rc6/include/asm-generic/bug.h
@@ -31,14 +31,19 @@ struct bug_entry {
#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while(0)
#endif
-#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_WARN_ON
+#ifndef __WARN
+#define __WARN() do { \
+ printk("WARNING: at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__, \
+ __LINE__, __FUNCTION__); \
+ dump_stack(); \
+} while (0)
+#endif
+
+#ifndef WARN_ON
#define WARN_ON(condition) ({ \
int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
What about using a boolean for __ret_warn_on, which then let us remove
the '!!'?
(btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead of
playing with '!'s?)
- if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) { \
- printk("WARNING: at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__, \
- __LINE__, __FUNCTION__); \
- dump_stack(); \
- } \
+ if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \
+ __WARN(); \
unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \
})
#endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
