[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509545C0.5050000@bfs.de>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:26:40 +0100
From: walter harms <wharms@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c: use WARN
Am 03.11.2012 15:14, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, walter harms wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.11.2012 11:58, schrieb Julia Lawall:
>>> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>>>
>>> Use WARN rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1), for conciseness.
>>>
>>> A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this
>>> transformation
>>> is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>>>
>>> // <smpl>
>>> @@
>>> expression list es;
>>> @@
>>>
>>> -printk(
>>> +WARN(1,
>>> es);
>>> -WARN_ON(1);
>>> // </smpl>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c | 6 ++----
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
>>> index 479e43e..84c6b6c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
>>> @@ -738,13 +738,11 @@ static int __devexit mal_remove(struct
>>> platform_device *ofdev)
>>> /* Synchronize with scheduled polling */
>>> napi_disable(&mal->napi);
>>>
>>> - if (!list_empty(&mal->list)) {
>>> + if (!list_empty(&mal->list))
>>> /* This is *very* bad */
>>> - printk(KERN_EMERG
>>> + WARN(1, KERN_EMERG
>>> "mal%d: commac list is not empty on remove!\n",
>>> mal->index);
>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>> - }
>>>
>>> dev_set_drvdata(&ofdev->dev, NULL);
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Julia,
>> you are removing the {} behin the if. I prefer to be a bit conservative
>> about {}. There is suggest to keep them because WARN may be expanded in
>> future (with a second line) and that will cause subtle changes that do
>> no break the code. (Yes i know it is possible to write macros that
>> contain savely more than one line.)
>
> WARN is already multi-line, surrounded by ({ }). It seems to be set up
> to be used as an expression. Is it necessary to assume that it might
> someday be changed from safe to unsafe?
>
my bad,
NTL looks like a candidate for a function.
While looking i have noticed that a lot of drivers define there private "assert" macro.
It is very similar to warn.
(e.g.)
#define RTL819x_DEBUG
#ifdef RTL819x_DEBUG
#define assert(expr) \
if (!(expr)) { \
printk( "Assertion failed! %s,%s,%s,line=%d\n", \
#expr,__FILE__,__FUNCTION__,__LINE__); \
}
re,
wh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists