linux-kernel - Re: [patch 13/17] Use WARN() in drivers/base/

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080711155105.70eb496a@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:51:05 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 13/17] Use WARN() in drivers/base/

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:11:10 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> I don't suppose there's any way of tricking the preprocessor into
> supporting
> 
> 	WARN_ON(foo == 42);
> 
> as well as
> 
> 	WARN_ON(foo == 42, "bite me!");
> 

after reading preprocessor docs from gcc and trying some things:
We can do this. It comes at a price: the price is a blank line in the
WARN trace for the "no printk comments" case, and we lose the ability
to override the printk level. (which you can argue is a feature by just
setting it to KERN_WARNING).

(and some interesting but otherwise non-harmful preprocessor stuff in
headers)

Is this is price worth paying to not have a second macro?

-- 
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/