[coreboot] [PATCH]More consistent behaviour for printk_*

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 27.04.2009 20:41, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Am 27.04.2009 20:35, schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
>> Let me propose an alternative which does not have an empty printk call,
>> yet keeps the side effects of all parameters.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>>
>> Index:
>> LinuxBIOSv2-printk_level_side_effects/src/arch/i386/lib/console_printk.c
>> ===================================================================
>> ---
>> LinuxBIOSv2-printk_level_side_effects/src/arch/i386/lib/console_printk.c   
>> (Revision 4217)
>> +++
>> LinuxBIOSv2-printk_level_side_effects/src/arch/i386/lib/console_printk.c   
>> (Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -13,39 +13,39 @@
>>
>>   #if MAXIMUM_CONSOLE_LOGLEVEL<= BIOS_EMERG
>>   #undef  printk_emerg
>> -#define printk_emerg(fmt, arg...)   do {} while(0)
>> +#define printk_emerg(fmt, arg...)   do { arg; } while(0)
> ...
>
> The only gripe I have with this is that certain bugs stay uncovered
> (eg. the via c7 CAR thing). But granted, they're very rare (basically:
> when a printk_* call is in a place where function calls won't work).

Could you please explain? Outside ROMCC compiled code (and arguably even
in ROMCC compiled code), there is not a single place where function
calls are allowed to fail. At least that's the impression I got in v3.
Since this is v2, I hope it acts sanely as well.


> Option #3 would be to just drop all the blocks. Someone with more
> taste than I should decide on this.

I'd rather keep them, but I won't veto any change.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/