lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-01 11:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans