[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395148051.2812.51.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:07:31 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Sam Creasey <sammy@...my.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitz@...ian.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] scsi/NCR5380: fix debugging macros and #include
structure
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 13:55 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
Hi Geert.
> > #define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) \
> > do { if (0) pr_debug(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
>
> Na, no_printk():
>
> #define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) no_printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
Fine, but with a correction.
no_printk keeps all side effects like
performing any function calls made by the
statement or accessing any volatiles.
Using
do { if (0) no_printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
does not have any side-effects.
--
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