[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080708111822.3e143c5e@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:18:22 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 2/17] Add a WARN() macro that acts like WARN_ON()+printk
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:00:05 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 09:40 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > +#ifndef WARN
> > +#define WARN(condition, format...)
> > ({ \
> > + int __ret_warn_on
> > = !!(condition); \
> > + if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \
> > +
> > __WARN_printf(format); \
> > +
> > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \
> > +}) +#endif
> > +
>
> If all current uses of WARN are going to change, perhaps
> adding an argument for KERN_<level> or removing the
> KERN_<level> prefixes and standardizing on a single
> KERN_<level> (KERN_WARNING?) is appropriate.
I looked at this and there are various levels in use today, I don't
think we can standardize on one unfortunately.
I don't think there's a real problem; WARN() really acts like printk...
all the way.
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists