From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:59:17 +0100
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:56:29PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:43:54 +0100
> >
> > > + if (__builtin_constant_p(__ret_warn_on)) { \
> > > + if (__ret_warn_on) \
> > > + __EMIT_BUG(BUGFLAG_WARNING); \
> >
> > I see we'll have this construct on powerpc, parisc and now s390.
> >
> > But if it's going to trigger essentially at compile time, I
> > think it's much better to BUILD_BUG_ON() in this case instead
> > of counting on the code path to actually run and the user to
> > notice and report the kernel log message.
>
> So something like WARN_ON(1) won't compile, but BUG_ON(1) still
> would? Seems odd to me.
> Also since there is nothing like WARN(), you have to use WARN_ON(1).
> Btw.: sparc64 has plenty of these ;)
I see. It's for case where we can't put the test into the
WARN_ON() call.
Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't considered such cases.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
