From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:47:52 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 00/12] scsi/NCR5380: fix debugging macros and #include
 structure
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1403190925550.6652@nippy.intranet>
References: <20140318002822.372705594@telegraphics.com.au>
 <1395112756.20860.1.camel@joe-AO722>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1403182208590.2018@nippy.intranet>
 <1395146702.2812.47.camel@joe-AO722>
 <CAMuHMdUMpdp7deL5zC4hUVTHjyNbtkZ2bNFupo5JiDyuyc345w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1395148051.2812.51.camel@joe-AO722>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1403190925550.6652@nippy.intranet>
Message-ID: <1395190072.8649.2.camel@joe-AO722>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org


On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 10:14 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> As for side-effects, chip register accesses would be affected if dprintk() 
> expanded to no_printk() when NDEBUG & flg == 0.
> 
> E.g. NCR5380.c line 1213:
> dprintk(NDEBUG_INTR, "scsi : unknown interrupt, BASR 0x%X, MR 0x%X, SR 0x%x\n",
>                      basr, NCR5380_read(MODE_REG), NCR5380_read(STATUS_REG));
> 
> I don't want to re-introduce side-effects into a dozen different NCR5380 
> drivers on three different architectures when I can test only one of those 
> drivers. It's difficult to get good code coverage even for one driver.

Hi again Finn.

If dprintk expanded directly to no_printk, then true.

But using "if (0)" prevents the no_printk from
occurring at all so there would be no side-effects
and the format & args would still be verified by the
compiler.

So I believe you shouldn't worry about side-effects.

cheers, Joe