[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mac8390: change an error return code and some cleanup, take 4
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.)
> >
> >;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:


or something better? Anyone else?

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-31 17:11    [W:0.055 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site