Re: [patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100 Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead of playing with '!'s?) no because var could be a pointer for example... You mean because in that

Re: [patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100 Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead > >> of playing with '!'s?) > >> > > > > no because var could be a pointer for example... > > > You mean because in that case it would be '!

Re: [patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

Arjan van de Ven wrote: 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

Re: [patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

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. > > > > Sign

Re: [patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

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 <[E

[patch 1/5] Introduce __WARN()

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]> --- inc