Re: [PATCH] let WARN_ON() output the condition

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > but i agree with you in theory that your proposed output is better, but 
> > the side-effect issue is a killer i think. Could you try to rework it to 
> > not evaluate the condition twice and to make it dependent on 
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE? You can avoid the evaluation side-effect issue 
> > by doing something like:
> > 	int __c = (c);							\
> >                                                                         \
> >         if (unlikely(__c)) {                                            \
> >                 if (debug_locks_off())                                  \
> >                         WARN_ON(__c);                                   \
> >                 __ret = 1;                                              \
> > 
> 
> Yep, making it dependent on CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE makes sense. 
> Andrew, will you take such patch? (when I also fix the 
> evaluating-twice issue).

i'll probably ack such a patch, it can be useful even when the line 
number is unique: if someone reports a WARN_ON() from an old kernel i 
dont have to dig up the exact source but can see it right from the 
condition what happened. Useful redundancy in bug output can be quite 
useful at times. Please post it and we'll see whether it's acceptable.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/