Messages in this thread | | | From | Anup Patel <> | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:39:59 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add debug defconfigs |
| |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:17 PM Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:03:34PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:33 AM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > > > Various Linux kernel DEBUG options have big performance impact > > > > so these should not be enabled in RISC-V normal defconfigs. > > > > > > > > Instead we should have separate RISC-V debug defconfigs having > > > > these DEBUG options enabled. This way Linux RISC-V can build both > > > > non-debug and debug kernels separately. > > > > > > I respect your point of view, but until the RISC-V kernel port is more > > > mature, I personally am not planning to merge this patch, for reasons > > > discussed in the defconfig patch descriptions and the subsequent pull > > > request threads. > > > > > > I'm sure we'll revisit this in the future to realign with the defconfig > > > debug settings for more mature architecture ports - but my guess is that > > > we'll probably avoid creating debug_defconfigs, since only S390 does that. > > > > We have a lot of users (Yocto and Buildroot) dependent on the Linux > > defconfig. I understand that you need DEBUG options for SiFive internal > > use but this does not mean all users dependent on Linux defconfig > > should be penalized in-terms of performance. > > > > This is the right time to introduce debug defconfigs so that you can > > use it for your SiFive internal use and all users dependent on normal > > defconfigs are not penalized in-terms of performance. > > > > If you still don't want debug defconfigs then I recommend reverting > > your DEBUG options patch and you can find an alternative way to > > enable DEBUG options for SiFive internal use. > > None of my business (except that I watch threads with debug in the > subject line) but why propose putting debug options into any kind > of defconfig. If you want standardized set debug options to chase > problems why can't they into a .config file rather than a defconfig > file. > > In use it will look like: > make defconfig extra_debug.config > > That way you don't have to maintain two almost identical files that will > inevitably drift apart.
This is a good suggestion. I will certainly try it out at my end and send a v2 with "extra_debug.config" file.
Thanks, Anup
| |