On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, walter harms wrote:

Am 03.11.2012 11:58, schrieb Julia Lawall:

quoted

From: Julia Lawall <redacted>

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 <redacted>

---
 drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c |    6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
index 479e43e..84c6b6c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c

@@ -738,13 +738,11 @@ static int __devexit mal_remove(struct platform_device *ofdev)
 	/* Synchronize with scheduled polling */
 	napi_disable(&mal->napi);

-	if (!list_empty(&mal->list)) {
+	if (!list_empty(&mal->list))
 		/* This is *very* bad */
-		printk(KERN_EMERG
+		WARN(1, KERN_EMERG
 		       "mal%d: commac list is not empty on remove!\n",
 		       mal->index);
-		WARN_ON(1);
-	}

 	dev_set_drvdata(&ofdev->dev, NULL);

Hi Julia,
you are removing the {} behin the if. I prefer to be a bit conservative
about {}. There is suggest to keep them because WARN may be expanded in
future (with a second line) and that will cause subtle changes that do
no break the code. (Yes i know it is possible to write macros that
contain savely more than one line.)

WARN is already multi-line, surrounded by ({ }).  It seems to be set up to 
be used as an expression.  Is it necessary to assume that it might someday 
be changed from safe to unsafe?

julia