-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Niels de Vos
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:51 PM
To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fb...@vger.kernel.org;
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Niels de Vos
Subject:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:20, Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote:
When DBG() is used in a simple if-else, the resulting code path
currently depends on the definition of DBG(). Inserting the statement in
a do { ... } while (0) prevents this possible misuse.
Signed-off-by: Niels de Vos
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:20, Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote:
When DBG() is used in a simple if-else, the resulting code path
currently depends on the definition of DBG(). Inserting the statement in
a do {
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
What about using the standard pr_debug()/dev_dbg() instead?
With dynamic debug, it can be enabled at run time.
As a bonus, you get printf()-style format checking if debugging is disabled.
Yes, dev_dbg co. would be better.
However,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 14:08, Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkei...@ti.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 11:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
What about using the standard pr_debug()/dev_dbg() instead?
With dynamic debug, it can be enabled at run time.
As a bonus, you get printf()-style format
