On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 04:22:04PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 09:18 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > > > > How's about we just remove that printk? Do > > > > > > #define J_ASSERT(e) BUG_ON(e)? ITYM #define J_ASSERT(e) BUG_ON(!e) > It did. The original J_ASSERT predates BUG() entirely, and was added so > that we got the file/line-no information. But with the current BUG() > macro, I can't see any reason for J_ASSERT still to try to gather that > information itself. Do you still want to keep J_ASSERT, or should all uses of it be replaced with BUG_ON? (to put it another way; if you were writing JBD now, would you add your own J_ASSERT, or would you just use BUG_ON directly?) -- "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
