Re: [patch 2/17] Add a WARN() macro that acts like WARN_ON()+printk

Arjan van de Ven
2008-07-08T18:18:35Z

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:00:05 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 09:40 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > +#ifndef WARN
> > +#define WARN(condition, format...)
> > ({ \
> > + int __ret_warn_on
> > = !!(condition); \
> > + if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \
> > +
> > __WARN_printf(format); \
> > +
> > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \
> > +}) +#endif
> > +
>
> If all current uses of WARN are going to change, perhaps
> adding an argument for KERN_<level> or removing the
> KERN_<level> prefixes and standardizing on a single
> KERN_<level> (KERN_WARNING?) is appropriate.

I looked at this and there are various levels in use today, I don't
think we can standardize on one unfortunately.
I don't think there's a real problem; WARN() really acts like printk...
all the way.

If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org