[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/13] ATA ACPI: debugging infrastructure
    James Courtier-Dutton <> wrote:
    > Is there a particular debugging coding style that we should adopt for
    > all the kernel code.

    Err, probably. But we'd need to have a 1000-email argument first.

    Right now many subsystems and often many individual drivers go and
    implement their own set of debugging macros and knobs to twiddle. This was
    a great source of fun for me in trying to support gcc-2.95.x - each time a
    new debug macro got implemented I had to go in there (again) and apply the
    gcc-2.95.x-macro-expansion-bug-workaround to it.

    Yes, one common toolset with a common way of controlling it would be much
    more sensible than the present chaos. I count 163 separate definitions of
    dprintk(), and that's excluding all the non-x86 arch and include dirs.

    > For example,
    > kconfig option in order to compile a module/section of core code for
    > debug work.
    > A sysfs file to then control the debug level for each module.
    > A debug module option, in the cases where a particular level of debug is
    > required at module load time, and before the sysfs entry exists.
    > If particularly fine grained debug control is needed, the module could
    > have multiple entries in the sysfs to control different classes of debug
    > output.

    Something like that.. Just don't cc me while you work it out ;)
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-01 11:50    [W:0.020 / U:18.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site