[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210226094032.49ac56d7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:40:32 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Use WARN(1,...)
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:44:26 +0000
Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn> wrote:
> Use WARN(1,...) rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1).
Why?
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index 526fd5ac2ba8..a556b8c00a9f 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -1957,7 +1957,7 @@ static int run_tracer_selftest(struct tracer *type)
> tr->current_trace = saved_tracer;
> if (ret) {
> /* Add the warning after printing 'FAILED' */
> - WARN(1, KERN_CONT "FAILED!\n");
> + WARN(1, "FAILED!\n");
The above isn't even in my tree.
Anyway, look at the code around it, and then tell that this patch makes
sense.
NAK.
-- Steve
> return -1;
> }
> /* Only reset on passing, to avoid touching corrupted buffers */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists