Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:50:04 +0200 > Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> utmisc.c needs to include asm-generic/bug.h for warn()/WARN() functions, >>> but it should use WARN_ON() instead of warn_on_slowpath() since >>> arches can provide their own implementation of WARN_ON(), which does >>> not have to use/provide/implement warn_on_slowpath() at all. >>> Just use the front door (WARN_ON). >>> >>> linux-next-20080702/drivers/acpi/utilities/utmisc.c:1027: error: implicit declaration of function 'warn_on_slowpath' >> On what architecture did you see that? > > Doesn't matter. > > x86, I expect. warn_on_slowpath() isn't implemented if CONFIG_BUG=n. > warn_on_slowpath() is an internal implementation detail of the generic > version of the WARN facility. No other code has any business using it. > >> It might be be better to just provide it on all architectures supported >> by ACPI (x86, ia64). I suppose it was ia64? > > Let's use the proper interfaces. WARN_ON(). The problem I see here is that they are not necessarily equivalent. In particular the function here is just a generic low level error reporting function, but you really want to report the caller. And that's a genuine wish. With your patch it would always report the same function and only differ in the (potentially unreliable) backtrace. I think it would be better to provide a warn_on_slowpath() for the !CONFIG_BUG case and drop this patch. Not-Acked: ... -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
