From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263670AbUDOJJ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:09:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263868AbUDOJJ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:09:27 -0400 Received: from mail1.kontent.de ([81.88.34.36]:38348 "EHLO Mail1.KONTENT.De") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263670AbUDOJJZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:09:25 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Duncan Sands , Greg KH 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 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Cc: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Detienne References: <200404141245.37101.baldrick@free.fr> <200404151031.19940.oliver@neukum.org> <200404151047.48239.baldrick@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <200404151047.48239.baldrick@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200404151108.52351.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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