Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100
Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead
of playing with '!'s?)
no because var could be a pointer for example...
You mean because in that
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100
Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> (btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead
> >> of playing with '!'s?)
> >>
> >
> > no because var could be a pointer for example...
> >
> You mean because in that case it would be
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:44:56 +0100
Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:44:56 +0100
Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
> > can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
> >
> >
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:44:56 +0100
Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100
Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead
of playing with '!'s?)
no because var could be a pointer for example...
You mean because in that case it would be '!= NULL', do you?
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:09:44 +0100
Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(btw, wouldn't 'var != 0' actually be the proper semantic instead
of playing with '!'s?)
no because var could be a pointer for example...
You mean because in that
From: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
From: Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Introduce __WARN() in the generic case, so the generic WARN_ON()
can use arch-specific code for when the condition is true.
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
11 matches
Mail list logo