On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:38 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> My point was that WARN_ON(X) always evaluates X once
>
> And apparently, WARN_ON_SMP(X) doesnt evaluates X iF !SMP
>
> This should be documented, or fixed ;)
My new patch has it documented. I even explain when to use the _SMP()
version, which is mainly for !spin_is_locked() as spin_is_locked()
always returns false, and !0 will trigger the warning.
It can also be used to test values that only exist in SMP.
struct foo {
[...]
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
int bar;
#endif
};
WARN_ON_SMP(zoo->bar);
We don't want that zoo->bar even evaluated for that case.
-- Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
