On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 03 November 2012, Julia Lawall wrote:@@ -113,10 +113,6 @@ printk(KERN_INFO a); \ touch_nmi_watchdog(); \ } while (0) -#define eprintk(a...) do { \ - printk(KERN_ERR a); \ - WARN_ON(1); \ - } while (0) #define MAX_CONFIG_LEN 40 static struct kgdb_io kgdbts_io_ops; @@ -323,7 +319,7 @@ static int check_and_rewind_pc(char *put_str, char *arg) v2printk("Emul: rewind hit single step bp\n"); restart_from_top_after_write = 1; } else if (strcmp(arg, "silent") && ip + offset != addr) { - eprintk("kgdbts: BP mismatch %lx expected %lx\n", + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "kgdbts: BP mismatch %lx expected %lx\n", ip + offset, addr); return 1; }Hmm, I did not think that WARN() took a KERN_ERR argument, which should really be implied here. Looking at the code, it really seems to be required at the moment, but only 5 out of 117 callers use it this way. Any idea what is going on here?
I'm not sure to understand the 5 and 117. Using grep, I get 30 with KERN_ERR, 61 with some KERN thing, and 1207 without KERN. If things are set up such that warn_slowpath_fmt is called, then that function adds KERN_WARNING. There is an alternate definition of __WARN_printf that just does a printk.
So if eprintk wants KERN_ERR, then it seems that rewriting it with WARN is not a good idea. I will check whether this problems arises with the other printks and WARNs that I suggested to merge.
thanks, 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
