From: Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 30 (jbd2 + bug.h) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:30:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20110830171605.168f29decb0558fa31e59210@canb.auug.org.au> <20110831131429.0513af51.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <201109011343.22014.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201109011343.22014.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:16:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> >> [Sorry about the delay. =A0My build machine is being slow. >> If this is alread fixed, sorry about the noise.] >> >> >> When CONFIG_BUG is not enabled (I see this on x86_64): >> >> fs/jbd2/transaction.c: In function 'jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata': >> fs/jbd2/transaction.c:1176: error: implicit declaration of function = '__WARN' >> >> >> asm-generic/bug.h does not provide a version of __WARN() when >> CONFIG_BUG is not enabled... >> > > Hmm, my feeling is that we shouldn't do that either, and that jbd2 sh= ould > be changed. If we want a function that does what __WARN() does today,= we > should probably make a conscious decision about what we want it to be= called > and not have it start with "__". > Why is WARN_ON() not used here ? - Arnaud > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Arnd > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next"= in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at =A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >