On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:44:56 +0100
Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 '!!'?
is iffy.. like what happens if an u64 is cast to a boolean?
No matter what the final assembly code will need to be the same
> (btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead of
> playing with '!'s?)
no because var could be a pointer for example...
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/
