[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACqU3MXZ52fM_xFFxmPm3wby8bD9isAsomxbvh_Dj+bBb9uFdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:30:47 -0400
From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 30 (jbd2 + bug.h)
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:16:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>>
>> [Sorry about the delay. My build machine is being slow.
>> If this is alread fixed, sorry about the noise.]
>>
>>
>> When CONFIG_BUG is not enabled (I see this on x86_64):
>>
>> fs/jbd2/transaction.c: In function 'jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata':
>> fs/jbd2/transaction.c:1176: error: implicit declaration of function '__WARN'
>>
>>
>> asm-generic/bug.h does not provide a version of __WARN() when
>> CONFIG_BUG is not enabled...
>>
>
> Hmm, my feeling is that we shouldn't do that either, and that jbd2 should
> be changed. If we want a function that does what __WARN() does today, we
> should probably make a conscious decision about what we want it to be called
> and not have it start with "__".
>
Why is WARN_ON() not used here ?
- Arnaud
> Arnd
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists