On 12/05/2016 08:03 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > BTW, the DISABLE_BACKTRACE branch seems quite different from backtrace one. > > #define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (long)(c)) > #define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, > (long)(c)) > #define ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, > (long)!(c)) > #define BUG() assert_trace(NULL, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, 1) > #else > #define BUG_ON(c) assert(!(c)) > #define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, > (long)(c)) > #define ASSERT(c) assert(!(c)) > #define BUG() assert(0) > > Condition of BUG_ON/ASSERT/BUG are all logical notted for > DISABLE_BACKTRACE. > While WARN_ON() of both branch are the same condition.
WARN_ON is using warning_trace as opposed to assert, and that is the reason it is not notted. > > This seems quite confusing to me. > > Any idea to make it more straightforward? > I just kept it the same as before. warning_trace was using an extra variable, trace, which was not needed because the print_trace was already in ifndefs. If you are talking about keeping WARN_ON outside of ifndef, yes, that will reduce the code further by another line. -- Goldwyn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
