On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> It will mean more code on architectures which have a
> conditional-trap-on-nonzero instruction, such as powerpc, since the
> compiler will generate instructions to evaluate !!x. But I don't see
> any reason why ret_warn_on couldn't be a long.
Umm. The WARN_ON() might actually get a "long long" value for all we know.
Ie it's perfectly possible that the WARN_ON might look like
/* Must not have high bits on */
WARN_ON(offset & 0xffffffff00000000);
which on a 32-bit pcc would apparently do the wrong thing entirely as it
stands now. No?
I think I'll commit the !!(x) version, and you guys can try to figure out
what the right thing is long-term. For all I know, the proper solution is
to just revert the whole mess, and *not* make WARN_ON() return a value at
all, since that seems to be the fundamental mistake here.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
