[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 3] xen/debug: Introduce ASSERT_PRINTK()
>>> On 08.10.12 at 20:16, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is a variant of ASSERT() which takes a predicate, and a variable > number of arguments which get fed to prink() before the BUG(). > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > This does use C99 varadic macros, but given that we use other C99 > features without #ifdef guards, I felt it not necessary to guard this as > well. > > diff -r 2927e18e9a7c -r 477ccdb9870e xen/include/xen/lib.h > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib.h > @@ -38,11 +38,26 @@ do { > } while (0) > #endif > > +#ifndef assert_printk_failed > +#define assert_printk_failed(p, ...) \ > +do { \ > + printk("Assertion '%s' failed, line %d, file %s\n", p , \ > + __LINE__, __FILE__); \ > + printk(__VA_ARGS__); \ The first argument here necessarily is a format string, so it should also be enforced that way. Which then opens the question whether the two printk()-s shouldn't be folded (at the price of requiring the format string to be a literal). I wonder though whether we wouldn't be better off following Linux'es WARN() et al infrastructure, rather than extending the ASSERT() one. Jan > + BUG(); \ > +} while (0) > +#endif /* assert_printk_failed */ > + > #ifdef CONFIG_ASSERTS > #define ASSERT(p) \ > do { if ( unlikely(!(p)) ) assert_failed(#p); } while (0) > + > +#define ASSERT_PRINTK(p, ...) \ > + do { if ( unlikely(!(p)) ) \ > + assert_printk_failed(#p, __VA_ARGS__); } while (0) > #else > #define ASSERT(p) do { if ( 0 && (p) ); } while (0) > +#define ASSERT_PRINTK(p, ...) do { if ( 0 && (p) ); } while (0) > #endif > > #define ABS(_x) ({ \ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |