[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1403191240001.23002@nippy.intranet>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:46:16 +1100 (EST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
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 Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.
I'd prefer this (for symmetry and clarity):
#if NDEBUG
#define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) \
do { if ((NDEBUG) & (flg)) pr_debug(fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
#else
#define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) \
do { if (0) pr_debug(fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
#endif
But you seem to be asking for this instead:
#if NDEBUG
#define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) \
do { if ((NDEBUG) & (flg)) pr_debug(fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
#else
#define dprintk(flg, fmt, ...) \
do { if (0) no_printk(fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
#endif
Why is that better?
--
--
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