On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:28:21 +0200, Steven Rostedt wrote:
WARN_ON() should never do anything but test. That ret++ does not belong
inside the WARN_ON() condition. If there are other locations in the
kernel that do that, then those locations need to be fixed.
Testing implies evaluating, so if we allow:
if (++i == end) { /* ... */ }
I see no reason why not to allow:
if (WARN_ON(++i == end)) { /* ... */ }
In both cases the condition is tested.
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:16 +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
+ ret = 0;
+ while (!PageBuddy(pfn_to_page(start & (~0UL << ret))))
+ if (WARN_ON(++ret >= MAX_ORDER))
+ return -EINVAL;
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:02:41AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some
people like to do:
#define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0)
to save space on some systems.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:26:50 +0200, Steven Rostedt wrote:
That should be fixed, as the if (WARN_ON()) has become a standard in
most of the kernel. Removing WARN_ON() should be:
#define WARN_ON(x) ({0;})
This would break a lot of code which expect that testing to take place.
Also see <http://lxr.linux.no/linux+*/include/asm-generic/bug.h#L108>.
But I agree, that there should be no "side effects" inside a WARN_ON(),
which that "++ret" is definitely one.
Thus I don't really agree with this point.
At any rate, I don't really care.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxx>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
