Re: [tip:core/urgent] WARN_ON_SMP(): Add comment to explain ({0;})

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/28/2011 07:45 AM, tip-bot for Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> WARN_ON_SMP(): Add comment to explain ({0;})
> 
> The define to use ({0;}) for the !CONFIG_SMP case of WARN_ON_SMP()
> can be confusing. As the WARN_ON_SMP() needs to be a nop when
> CONFIG_SMP is not set, including all its parameters must not be
> evaluated, and that it must work as both a stand alone statement
> and inside an if condition, we define it to a funky ({0;}).
> 
> A simple "0" will not work as it causes gcc to give the warning that
> the statement has no effect.
> 
> As this strange definition has raised a few eyebrows from some
> major kernel developers, it is wise to document why we create such
> a work of art.
> 

What the heck is wrong with the idiomatic and non-gcc-extension-using:

	((void)0)

?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/