Am 03.11.2012 11:58, schrieb Julia Lawall: > From: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> > > Use WARN rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1), for conciseness. > > A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this transformation > is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > // <smpl> > @@ > expression list es; > @@ > > -printk( > +WARN(1, > es); > -WARN_ON(1); > // </smpl> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> > > --- > drivers/misc/kgdbts.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/kgdbts.c b/drivers/misc/kgdbts.c > index 3aa9a96..8b367db 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/kgdbts.c > +++ b/drivers/misc/kgdbts.c > @@ -114,9 +114,8 @@ > touch_nmi_watchdog(); \ > } while (0) > #define eprintk(a...) do { \ > - printk(KERN_ERR a); \ > - WARN_ON(1); \ > - } while (0) > + WARN(1, KERN_ERR a); \ > + } while (0) > #define MAX_CONFIG_LEN 40 >
A macro calling a macro ? Is it possible to replace eprintk() ? re, wh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
