Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Mar 2006 02:45:59 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/13] ATA ACPI: debugging infrastructure |
| |
James Courtier-Dutton <James@superbug.co.uk> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |