On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:26:45PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz 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.
>
> I don't think that's the case. Even if WARN_ON() decides not to print
> a warning, it will still return the value of the argument. If not,
> a lot of code will brake.
>
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.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>