On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:55:44AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > >> + commit(crtc); > > > > > > So no checking of its return value.. Should you at least wrap > > > it with WARN_ON(?) > > > > Is it safe to rely on the "payload" of the WARN_ON() always being > > evaluated, or is there any scenario that you could have something like > > Hmm, good question. I assumed so, but you got me thinking. > > > > #define WARN_ON(X) > > > > ie., is this safe: > > > > WARN_ON(commit(crtc)); > > > > it looked like different archs can provide their own WARN_ON, so > > wasn't sure how much to trust it.. asm-generic/bug.h has the "right" implementation. If other architectures redefine as your have pointed out - then that looks like a bug. A: Yes, it is safe to do WARN_ON(commit(rctc)); _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
