From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 of 3] xen/debug: Introduce ASSERT_RUN() Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: <507BDCC7.8030306@citrix.com> References: <0a1a3f35f56a1a2b3b8f.1349720163@andrewcoop.uk.xensource.com> <507BF24D02000078000A1497@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <507BD95B.7070003@citrix.com> <507BF6B402000078000A14D8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <507BF6B402000078000A14D8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/10/12 10:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 15.10.12 at 11:37, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> I presume that you mean I should? Why would that prevent the need for >> #ifdefs? I can see the argument for type compatibility. > Because if func is a static function defined for use just in an > ASSERT_RUN(), the compiler would warn about it being unused > in non-debug builds. > > Jan > Ah yes. I see now. As I am going to respin these patches, would you like BUG and WARN variants (of at least the PRINTK version) ? ~Andrew -- Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com