[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110331192821.GF14441@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:28:21 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
Johan MOSSBERG <johan.xx.mossberg@...ricsson.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Pawel Osciak <pawel@...iak.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: alloc_contig_range() added
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:26:45PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> >In any case, please pull the ++ret bit out of the WARN_ON(). Some
> >people like to do:
> >
> >#define WARN_ON(...) do{}while(0)
> >
> >to save space on some systems.
>
> I don't think that's the case. Even if WARN_ON() decides not to print
> a warning, it will still return the value of the argument. If not,
> a lot of code will brake.
>
WARN_ON() should never do anything but test. That ret++ does not belong
inside the WARN_ON() condition. If there are other locations in the
kernel that do that, then those locations need to be fixed.
-- Steve
--
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