On 12/03/2015 03:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:10 -0500, Jason Baron wrote: >> On 12/03/2015 03:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 14:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote: >>>> On 12/03/2015 01:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: >>>>> I think that as a minimum, the following patch should be evaluted, >>>>> but am unsure to whom I should submit it (after I test): >>> [] >>>> Agreed - the intention here is certainly to have no side effects. It >>>> looks like 'no_printk()' is used in quite a few other places that would >>>> benefit from this change. So we probably want a generic >>>> 'really_no_printk()' macro. >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/17/231 >> >> I don't see this in the tree. > > It never got applied. > >> Also maybe we should just convert >> no_printk() to do what your 'eliminated_printk()'. > > Some of them at least. > >> So we can convert all users with this change? > > I don't think so, I think there are some > function evaluation/side effects that are > required. I believe some do hardware I/O. > > It'd be good to at least isolate them. > > I'm not sure how to find them via some > automated tool/mechanism though. > > I asked Julia Lawall about it once in this > thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/3/696 >
Seems rather fragile to have side effects that we rely upon hidden in a printk(). Just convert them and see what breaks :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
