linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] scsi/NCR5380: fix debugging macros and #include structure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1395194081.8649.7.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:54:41 -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 12:46 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> 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?

It's not to me.

I suggested exactly your first block with if (0) pr_debug...
in the first thing I wrote.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/18/216

Geert suggested no_printk.

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/