lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] dynamic debug
    On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:26:12AM +0900, Takashi Nishiie wrote:
    > Jason Baron wrote:
    > >Each kernel sub-system seems to have its own way of dealing with
    > >debugging statements. Some of these methods include 'dprintk',
    > >'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', 'DEBUGP'. There are also a myriad of
    > >ways of enabling these statements.
    >
    > I propose to replace 'Pr_debug', 'Dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP' with
    > kernel markers. SystemTap is used for the output of the log.
    >
    > I propose to make it to the function to output only specified
    > kernel markers as a log and the function in a word like LTTng of
    > a simple version by using the framework and kernel markers of
    > ftrace if the log is output by using debugfs.
    >
    > Thank you,
    >

    perhaps markers could be used to replace 'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP'
    but i have yet to see patches for that...

    In a number of ways, these dynamic debug patches differ from markers:

    -Markers have a pre-defined format string and arguments list, whereas debug
    statements have a 'printk' format
    -these patches are built around per-module debugging, which is largely implicit
    whereas markers explicitly define sets of related markers.
    -these patches allow 'flags' and levels to be set per-module, markers do not
    have this concept.
    -these patches are tied into a procfs control file, whereas markers are
    controlled by kernel modules which register handlers.

    These two patchsets are really addressing different problems afaict.

    thanks,

    -Jason





    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-16 20:23    [W:0.047 / U:119.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site