[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803250209.28332.nitingupta910@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:09:27 +0530
From: Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>
To: "Will Newton" <will.newton@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] compcache: block device - internal defs
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 02:06:02 am Will Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Create /proc/compcache? */
> > > > +/* If STATS is disabled, this will give minimal compcache info */
> > > > +#define CONFIG_COMPCACHE_PROC
> > > > +
> > > > +#if DEBUG
> > > > +#define CC_DEBUG(fmt,arg...) \
> > > > + printk(KERN_DEBUG C fmt,##arg)
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define CC_DEBUG(fmt,arg...) NOP
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Have you thought about using pr_debug() for this? It looks like it
> > > would simplify this file at the cost of a little flexibility.
> > >
> >
> > I want to enable/disable this debugging based on DEBUG_COMPCACHE flag.
> > Thats why I added these macros. I will do 'printk(KERN_DEBUG' ->
> > pr_debug
>
> The definition of pr_debug (kernel.h) is already surrounded by #ifdef
> DEBUG so it may give you the same behaviour as the CC_DEBUG macro.
>
Yes, I missed this point. But still, I want to have two levels of debugging. I can probably use pr_debug() for "normal" debug and CC_DEBUG for "verbose" debugging. This looks bit inconsistent, so maybe I should stick which CC_DEBUG/CC_DEBUG2 pair instead?
- Nitin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists