[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 2/13/2018 2:46 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> 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. Not changing any already defined macros in Xen. > > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |