mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Duncan Sands <baldrick@free.fr>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Detienne <fd@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 7/9] USB usbfs: destroy submitted urbs only on the disconnected interface
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:08:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200404151108.52351.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200404151047.48239.baldrick@free.fr>

Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2004 10:47 schrieb Duncan Sands:
> > > Hi Oliver, I thought you meant that CONFIG_EMBEDDED made WARN_ON go
> > > away (or something like that).  If you just mean that it is easy to
> > > redefine WARN_ON by hand, then all I can say is: it is also easy to
> > > redefine warn by hand!  Anyway, I made you the following patch:
> >
> > Yes, but I don't trust gcc to optimise away the 'if' if you redefine
> > warn().
>
> The "if" cannot be optimized away for the case in point, because it
> does something (clears the bit) if it passes the test.  If I used WARN_ON
> then it would have to be WARN_ON(1) in the else branch of the if.

True. You should use BUG_ON().
If this ever happens the device tree is screwed. There's no use going on.

> > But there is another point. The embedded people deserve a single switch
> > to remove assertion checks. The purpose of macros like WARN_ON() is
> > easy and _central_ choice of debugging output vs. kernel size.
>
> This is not an argument against using USB's warn, it is an argument for
> building warn on top of a centralized macro like WARN_ON or a friend.

It is an argument against USB making its own constructs. There's nothing
terribly specific about USB that would justify it. If the usual debug statements
are inadequate, improve them.

	Regards
		Oliver


  reply	other threads:[~2004-04-15  9:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-04-14 10:45 Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 13:30 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Oliver Neukum
2004-04-14 13:38   ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 15:00   ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 15:33     ` Oliver Neukum
2004-04-14 15:39       ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 20:39         ` Oliver Neukum
2004-04-15  8:05           ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-15  8:31             ` Oliver Neukum
2004-04-15  8:47               ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-15  9:08                 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2004-04-15  9:21                   ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 16:48 ` Alan Stern
2004-04-14 17:09   ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-14 17:55     ` Alan Stern
2004-04-17 18:31   ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-17 18:53     ` Duncan Sands
2004-04-17 19:52       ` Alan Stern

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200404151108.52351.oliver@neukum.org \
    --to=oliver@neukum.org \
    --cc=baldrick@free.fr \
    --cc=fd@cisco.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®