[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D90A08D.707@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:51:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
srostedt@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, adobriyan@...il.com
CC: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/urgent] WARN_ON_SMP(): Add comment to explain ({0;})
On 03/28/2011 07:45 AM, tip-bot for Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> WARN_ON_SMP(): Add comment to explain ({0;})
>
> The define to use ({0;}) for the !CONFIG_SMP case of WARN_ON_SMP()
> can be confusing. As the WARN_ON_SMP() needs to be a nop when
> CONFIG_SMP is not set, including all its parameters must not be
> evaluated, and that it must work as both a stand alone statement
> and inside an if condition, we define it to a funky ({0;}).
>
> A simple "0" will not work as it causes gcc to give the warning that
> the statement has no effect.
>
> As this strange definition has raised a few eyebrows from some
> major kernel developers, it is wise to document why we create such
> a work of art.
>
What the heck is wrong with the idiomatic and non-gcc-extension-using:
((void)0)
?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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