On Jan 14, 2008 7:49 AM, Johannes Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mike Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > wonder if we could design a printk designed for __init functions to
> > address this in a clean fashion.
> > #define init_printk(fmt, __VA_ARGS__) \
> > do { \
> > static const __init char __fmt[] = fmt; \
> > printk(__fmt , ## __VA_ARGS__); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > (yes, i know this isnt perfect as you'd need to pass back the return
> > value of printk(), but it's an idea)
>
> How about:
>
> #define init_printk(fmt, args...) ({ \
> static const __init char __fmt[] = fmt; \
> printk(__fmt, args); \
> })
>
> Now it returns the printk result.
i wasnt really worried about that ... i was worried about other random
things i may have missed
your dropping of ## wont work as you need gcc to expand args and take
away the , in the simple 1 arg case:
init_printk("MOO");
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
