On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, walter harms wrote:
Am 03.11.2012 11:58, schrieb Julia Lawall:
From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
Use WARN rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1), for conciseness.
A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this transformation
is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@@
expression list es;
@@
-printk(
+WARN(1,
es);
-WARN_ON(1);
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
index 479e43e..84c6b6c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
@@ -738,13 +738,11 @@ static int __devexit mal_remove(struct platform_device *ofdev)
/* Synchronize with scheduled polling */
napi_disable(&mal->napi);
- if (!list_empty(&mal->list)) {
+ if (!list_empty(&mal->list))
/* This is *very* bad */
- printk(KERN_EMERG
+ WARN(1, KERN_EMERG
"mal%d: commac list is not empty on remove!\n",
mal->index);
- WARN_ON(1);
- }
dev_set_drvdata(&ofdev->dev, NULL);
Hi Julia,
you are removing the {} behin the if. I prefer to be a bit conservative
about {}. There is suggest to keep them because WARN may be expanded in
future (with a second line) and that will cause subtle changes that do
no break the code. (Yes i know it is possible to write macros that
contain savely more than one line.)
WARN is already multi-line, surrounded by ({ }). It seems to be set up to
be used as an expression. Is it necessary to assume that it might someday
be changed from safe to unsafe?
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
