Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1614198

Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg

From Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg
Date 2017-03-31 19:50 +0200
Message-ID <tr8Qp-7JU-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <tqRcR-4Gj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tr8nn-7xP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tr8x3-7BG-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tr8GJ-7Fk-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 10:34 -0700, Steve deRosier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 10:19 -0700, Steve deRosier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > Fix fallout too.
> > 
> > []
> > > My only question is why bother doing a format check on something
> > > that's going to be compiled out anyway?
> > 
> > To avoid introducing defects when writing new code
> > and not using the debugging code path.
> > 
> 
> Fair enough. And I totally agree with the defensive programming here
> in that case and feel it's worth the tradeoff (if indeed there really
> is any cost, I'm unsure what gcc actually does in this instance).
> 
> For sake of discussion though - shouldn't anything not using the debug
> code path in this case always be of the form that compiles out? ie
> would be empty functions intended here just to make compilation work
> and the code that depends on it simpler? Thus, there really should
> never be a risk of introducing said defects. If any "real" code were
> put in that else clause, that'd be a big red-flag in the review of
> said hypothetical patch.

Generically, all debugging forms should strive to avoid side-effects.

For instance, look at no_printk/pr_debug in the #ifndef DEBUG paths.

It uses if (0) to avoid compilation of arguments that might be
function calls or volatile accesses and so might have side-effects
altogether.

include/linux/printk.h-/*
include/linux/printk.h- * Dummy printk for disabled debugging statements to use whilst maintaining
include/linux/printk.h- * gcc's format checking.
include/linux/printk.h- */
include/linux/printk.h:#define no_printk(fmt, ...)                              \
include/linux/printk.h-({                                                       \
include/linux/printk.h- do {                                            \
include/linux/printk.h-         if (0)                                  \
include/linux/printk.h-                 printk(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);     \
include/linux/printk.h- } while (0);                                    \
include/linux/printk.h- 0;                                              \
include/linux/printk.h-})
i

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-03-31 01:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-03-31 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 19:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-03-31 19:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: Add __printf verification to ath6kl_dbg Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 20:00 +0200

csiph-web