Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
cc: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       herbert@gondor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks
In-Reply-To: <18096.949.934194.648312@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707312101410.3582@woody.linux-foundation.org>
References: <20070731155527.GB7253@localhost.sw.ru> <20070731160248.GK21089@ftp.linux.org.uk>
 <18096.949.934194.648312@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 29


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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/