[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: introduce GEM_WARN_ON

[Matthew Auld]

On 2 December 2016 at 13:54, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:23:13PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
>> In a similar spirit to GEM_BUG_ON we now also have GEM_WARN_ON, this
>> will enable us to freely add warnings which our CI will hopefully catch
>> but without fear of impacting production machines.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h
>> index 51ec793f2e20..04c777e6d0bf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h
>> @@ -27,8 +27,10 @@
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM
>>  #define GEM_BUG_ON(expr) BUG_ON(expr)
>> +#define GEM_WARN_ON(expr) WARN_ON(expr)
>>  #else
>>  #define GEM_BUG_ON(expr) do { } while (0)
>> +#define GEM_WARN_ON(expr) do { } while (0)
>
> #define GEM_WARN_ON 0
Oops. As an alternative, would you be offended with something like:

#define GEM_WARN_ON(expr) (BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(expr), 0)

Then the compiler will still check the validity of the expression, but
will still compile everything out, and then we don't accidentally
break the build when compiling without DEBUG_GEM ?