On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 20:03 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> [...]
> > #ifdef CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI_DEBUG
> > #define vdbg_printk dbg_printk
> > static const char *str_supported(int is_supported);
> > #else
> > -#define vdbg_printk(a_dbg_level, format, arg...) \
> > - do { } while (0)
> > +static inline const char *str_supported(int is_supported) { return ""; }
> > +#define vdbg_printk(a_dbg_level, format, arg...) \
> > + no_printk(format, ##arg)
> > #endif
>
> Should be...
> + do { } while (0)
> ...not...
> + no_printk(format, ##arg)
I disagree. No printk serves as a mechanism to verify
printk arguments when !CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI_DEBUG.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
