[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395190072.8649.2.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:47:52 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"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 Wed, 2014-03-19 at 10:14 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> As for side-effects, chip register accesses would be affected if dprintk()
> expanded to no_printk() when NDEBUG & flg == 0.
>
> E.g. NCR5380.c line 1213:
> dprintk(NDEBUG_INTR, "scsi : unknown interrupt, BASR 0x%X, MR 0x%X, SR 0x%x\n",
> basr, NCR5380_read(MODE_REG), NCR5380_read(STATUS_REG));
>
> I don't want to re-introduce side-effects into a dozen different NCR5380
> drivers on three different architectures when I can test only one of those
> drivers. It's difficult to get good code coverage even for one driver.
Hi again Finn.
If dprintk expanded directly to no_printk, then true.
But using "if (0)" prevents the no_printk from
occurring at all so there would be no side-effects
and the format & args would still be verified by the
compiler.
So I believe you shouldn't worry about side-effects.
cheers, Joe
--
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