[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F1D44A.8010908@yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:20:58 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 25/26] UBIFS: add debugging stuff
Good day Pekka
>> +void *dbg_vmalloc(size_t size)
>> +
>> +void dbg_vfree(void *addr)
>> +
>> +void dbg_leak_report(void)
>
> Not acceptable for mainline kernel. SLAB already provides leak
> detection and it should be straight-forward to port over to SLUB too.
Yeah, we will remove this later, keep it for now because it is very
convenient. I guess you refer the /proc/slab_allocations feature.
We found it less appropriate because it needs additional scripts to
be run to detect leaks, while this simple just hack makes UBIFS print
a message if there is a leak, which is just easier for us.
>> +/*
>> + * struct eaten_memory - memory object eaten by UBIFS to cause memory pressure.
>> + * @list: link in the list of eaten memory objects
>> + * @pad: just pads to memory page size
>> + */
>> +struct eaten_memory {
>> + struct list_head list;
>> + uint8_t pad[PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - sizeof(struct list_head)];
>> +};
>
> If you need this, please make it a standalone module in mm/.
That was introduced to test the UBIFS shrinker, and to make sure
there are no races and everything works fine. Yes, will be removed
later.
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_UBIFS_FS_DEBUG
>> +#define UBIFS_DBG(op) op
>> +#define ubifs_assert(expr) do { \
>> +
>> +/* Generic debugging message */
>> +#define dbg_msg(fmt, ...) do { \
>> +
>> +/* Debugging message which prints UBIFS key */
>> +#define dbg_key(c, key, fmt, ...) do { \
>> +
>> +#define dbg_err(fmt, ...) ubifs_err(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> +#define dbg_dump_stack() dump_stack()
>
> Please kill these wrappers and use BUG_ON, WARN_ON, and printk() where
> appropriate.
Well, I do not see a big reason not to get rid of this harmless stuff.
Many kernel subsystems have their debugging, why not? Using BUG_ON() is
OK in few most important places. But we want to have more assertions
which are compiled-out by default, why can't we?. Similar is for prints.
Thanks for the feed-back.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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