Re: [PATCH] omap2/omapfb: make DBG() more resistant in if-else constructions
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2011-05-10 09:42:06
Also in:
linux-omap, lkml
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:20, Niels de Vos [off-list ref] wrote:
When DBG() is used in a simple if-else, the resulting code path
currently depends on the definition of DBG(). Inserting the statement in
a "do { ... } while (0)" prevents this possible misuse.
Signed-off-by: Niels de Vos <redacted>quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb.h +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/omapfb.h@@ -34,8 +34,10 @@#ifdef DEBUG extern unsigned int omapfb_debug; #define DBG(format, ...) \ - if (omapfb_debug) \ - printk(KERN_DEBUG "OMAPFB: " format, ## __VA_ARGS__) + do { \ + if (omapfb_debug) \ + printk(KERN_DEBUG "OMAPFB: " format, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ + while (0)
Where's the closing '}'?
#else #define DBG(format, ...)
BTW, no printf()-style format checking here.
#endif
What about using the standard pr_debug()/dev_dbg() instead?
With dynamic debug, it can be enabled at run time.
As a bonus, you get printf()-style format checking if debugging is disabled.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds