Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:59:37 -0700 | | From | Greg KH <> | | Subject | Re: Dynamic Debug module.ddebug fake param enhancements V4 |
| |
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:22:11AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 06:25:18 am Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Greg: Do you mind pushing the first (1/4, V4) and the last (4/4) > > patch into your tree for linux-next and leave the two PNP patches > > out, please.
I've applied them now.
> > More PNP related discussion, below. > > > > On Monday 27 September 2010 17:09:18 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Monday, September 27, 2010 02:25:46 am Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > > > > > What do you think (dev_dbg vs printk(KERN_DEBUG...)? > > ... > > > With the exception of the ones in pnp/resource.c that I want to convert > > > to dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG), I think all the pnp_dbg() uses are things > > > I used during PNP development and haven't ever needed since. > > > > Ok. Sounds sane. > > I used the PNP parts as it nicely showed what the > > module.ddebug boot param is doing, but I agree it hasn't much > > advantage for PNP. > > > > Whatabout compiling pnp in one module namespace, the first > > of the two PNP patches? > > [2/4] looks reasonable to me.
And this one.
> > > E.g. attached patch would be an on top patch which provides no > > functional change, just that a pnp.debug would be a module param: > > cat /sys/module/pnp/parameters/debug > > As does the one below.
And this one.
So that left 3/4 out of the series applied to my tree.
If this is incorrect, please let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
|  |