On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:39:47 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

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

I think I knew that.  At 1000 callsites.
-
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/