On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Roland Dreier <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + pr_err("%s[%d]: unexpected opcode %d", __func__, __LINE__,
>> + opcode);
>> + WARN_ON(true);
>
> Not a big deal, but I guess this could just be
>
> WARN(1, "unexpected opcode %d", opcode);
As far as I can see with CONFIG_BUG=n WARN() is defined as follows:
#define WARN(condition, format...) ({ \
int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \
})
So the changing pr_err(); WARN_ON(true); into WARN(1, ...) would cause
no error message to be printed if CONFIG_BUG=n. Is that the way kernel
code should behave if CONFIG_BUG=n ?
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
