On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 04:57, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 07:37:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 18:31, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>> > This series adds a configuration option to selectively compile out
>> > printk message strings based on a verbosity level.
>> >
>> > This works by wrapping printk with a macro which evaluates to a
>> > constant if condition which the compiler will be able to optimize
>> > out.
>> >
>> > However because printk might be wrapped by a macro it no longer has
>> > a return value. This means that constructs like the following ones
>> > don't work:
>> >
>> > ((void)(SOME_RANDOM_DEBUG_FLAG && printk(...));
>> >
>> > some_random_variable = printk(...);
>> >
>> > Therefore printk_unfiltered is introduced which is just an alias
>> > to the standard printk function but not wrapped by a macro.
>>
>> why dont you return 0 if it gets optimized away ? then you wont have
>> to screw with external code at all and things "just work".
>
> This won't work because it would for example also return from functions
> which call printk but aren't checking for the return value (which is
> the common case).
why would it matter ?
({
int __printk_ret = 0;
if (crazy stuff you're adding)
__printk_ret = printk(.....);
__printk_ret;
})
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
