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>