Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup, take 4 | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 31 May 2010 08:08:13 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 11:58 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > To make it plain: there are 25 files or so that use ei_debug. Three of > > those that now have the KERN_DEBUG printk's suppresed by the DEBUG macro > > only do so as an apparently unintended side effect of a commit that claims > > to "implement dynmic debug infrastructure". (Go figure.) > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=dd0fab5b940c0b65f26ac5b01485bac1f690ace6 > > > > Your suggestion to use pr_debug is invoking compile time infrastructure > > (the DEBUG macro), so it is not in the spirit of this commit, and it is > > not relevant to any criticism from you or Joe of the earlier submissions. > > > > Please apply the patch. > > `pr_debug()' indeed now may generate code if DEBUG is not defined, > i.e. if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is enabled. > This is intented for debug infrastructure the user may want to enable later. > > If you want the old behavior, you can use `pr_devel()' instead, which > only generates code if DEBUG is defined. > This is intended for debug infrastructure for developers only. > > However, you used `printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt()...)`, which always generates code. > I'm still not 100% sure that was intentional?
There are many uses of KERN_DEBUG that are reasonable to have always enabled.
There is no pr_<level> macro/function that is always enabled.
David, would you accept a new pr_<level> in kernel.h for that purpose?
If so, do you have an opinion what it should be named?
I think pr_dbg is not ideal as dev_dbg is already in use and can get optimized away.
Maybe one of:
pr_always_dbg pr_dbg_always pr_dbg_noopt pr_tdbg
or something better? Anyone else?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/1/399
| |