Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755199Ab0KMOsN (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:48:13 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:55869 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754421Ab0KMOsI (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:48:08 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 06:45:12 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Rakib Mullick Cc: LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. Message-ID: <20101113144512.GB29781@kroah.com> References: <20101109224450.GB21992@kroah.com> <20101110183940.GA15089@kroah.com> <20101111121917.GA933@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1662 Lines: 40 On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 07:35:10PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > On 11/11/10, Rakib Mullick wrote: > > On 11/11/10, Greg KH wrote: > >> > >> perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with > >> WARN not enabled, is this a real issue? > > > > I'm trying to find out the config, which causes the warning (it gets > > overwritten). Not all config produces the warning. Maybe - it was a > > randconfig, which generates the warning. I'll again try some > > randconfig and will try to find the config which generates the > > warning. If I find something I'll notice. But, I think the issue is > > real. > > > CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y and CONFIG_BUG=n produces that warning, in that case > #ifndef WARN is defined as follows: > > #define WARN(condition, format...) ({ \ > int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \ > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \ > }) > > from above we can see, format isn't used. sysfs_pathname is passed as > format when called from sysfs_add_one through WARN(). Since format > isn't used, that's why we're having that problem. Am I right? Should I > create a patch to split up WARN() and calling sysfs_pathname ? Or is > there any better way? No, you should probably just not worry about it as the number of people using those two configuration options are in the extreme minority so it's really not a big issue at all. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/