On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:27:20 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven
> <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
> >  #define WARN_ON(condition)
> > ({						\ int
> > __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);				\ if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) {					\
> > -		printk("WARNING: at %s:%d %s()\n",
> > __FILE__,		\
> > -			__LINE__,
> > __FUNCTION__);			\
> > +		printk("WARNING: at %s:%d %s()  (%s)\n",
> > __FILE__,	\
> > +			__LINE__, __FUNCTION__,
> > UTS_RELEASE);		\
> > dump_stack();
> > \ }
> > \ unlikely(__ret_warn_on);					\
> 
> that made our 1100-odd WARN_ON sites fatter.

by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
same-strings into one, so it's just one extra pointer argument



-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
-
unsubscribe notice
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/