lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Centralize the selection for debugging semaphores.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> On 31/01/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >
> > > On 31/01/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Centralize the kernel config option for debugging semaphores and
> > > > modify the macro for frv to use that config option instead.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com>
> > > [..]
> > > > +config DEBUG_SEMAPHORE
> > > > + bool "Semaphore debugging"
> > > > + depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > > > + default n
> > > > + help
> > > > + If you say Y here then semaphore processing will issue lots of
> > > > + verbose debugging messages. If you suspect a semaphore
> > problem or
> > > > a
> > > > + kernel hacker asks for this option then say Y. Otherwise say
> > N.
> > > > +
> > > > + At the moment, this is implemented only by alpha and frv.
> > >
> > > IMHO this option should stay in arch/{alpha,frv}/Kconfig.debug
> >
> > any particular reason?
>
> Only this
> "At the moment, this is implemented only by alpha and frv."
>
> It depends on architecture.

yes, i realize that, but surely there's a cleaner way to implement
something that's supported by only *some* of the architectures rather
than duplicating the code for every one of those architectures.

one possibility is to have the global config option look like this:

config DEBUG_SEMAPHORE
bool "Semaphore debugging"
depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && HAVE_SEMAPHORE_DEBUGGING
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
default n
...

at that point, any architecture that implements semaphore debugging
and wants to advertise that simply needs to add this at the top of its
Kconfig.debug file:

config HAVE_SEMAPHORE_DEBUGGING
def_bool y

that was just off the top of my head, but it seems to work. more
generally, though, surely this sort of thing has come up before --
wanting to advertise an identical user-configurable option only for
certain architectures. how is that done *now* without rampant code
duplication? or is it?

rday

--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel
Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://www.fsdev.dreamhosters.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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: 2007-01-31 15:25    [W:0.024 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site