[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] Port WARN_ON_ONCE() from Linux
>>> On 09.02.18 at 11:47, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:45:25AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 02/09/2018 10:29 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:10:49PM -0700, Sameer Goel wrote: >> > > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/lib.h b/xen/include/xen/lib.h >> > > index 1d9771340c..697212a061 100644 >> > > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib.h >> > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib.h >> > > @@ -11,6 +11,19 @@ >> > > #define BUG_ON(p) do { if (unlikely(p)) BUG(); } while (0) >> > > #define WARN_ON(p) do { if (unlikely(p)) WARN(); } while (0) >> > > +#define WARN_ON_ONCE(p) \ >> > > +({ \ >> > > + static bool __section(".data.unlikely") __warned; \ >> > > + int __ret_warn_once = !!(p); \ >> > ^ bool >> > >> > > + \ >> > > + if ( unlikely(__ret_warn_once && !__warned) ) \ >> > > + { \ >> > > + __warned = true; \ >> > > + WARN(); \ >> > > + } \ >> > > + unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \ >> > >> > Does this macro really need to return something? It seems weird to me >> > to allow usages like: if ( WARN_ON_ONCE... >> >> This construct is used in Linux (included in the driver ported): >> >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(fwspec->iommu_priv)) { >> master = fwspec->iommu_priv; >> smmu = master->smmu; >> } else { >> .... >> } >> >> IHMO the makes the code nicer to read over: > > OK, if that's intended I'm fine with it, just wanted to check. But WARN_ON() should then be given the same property, I think. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |