linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 26/26] UBIFS: include FS to compilation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080428113932.GA27250@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:39:32 -0400
From:	ext ext Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Cc:	ext ext Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 26/26] UBIFS: include FS to compilation

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> But these don't make much sense to me. Why would you want to be able
>>>> to compile out printks at this granularity? Why not enable all of them
>>>> when CONFIG_UBIFS_FS_DEBUG is enabled? 
>>>
>>> Well, its just more convenient for us. If I know the bug is somewhere in
>>> the journal, I enable the journal messages - less flooding. We may
>>> lessen the amount, but it is still handy to have some classes of
>>> prints separate.
>>>
>>> We will think how to lessen the amount and granularity of this. 

note that this last line was _not_ quoted in my mail.

>>> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> It's everything but convenient :)  Please make it one config option to
>>>> compile in all debug code and then have a module option to select the
>>>> verbosity level at runtime.
>>> Surely that judgement should be made by people who actually debug UBIFS.

> You have gone off on a tangent.  The original context was discussing the
> need for granulated debug messages.  I have restored the context above.

I think you haven't read my statement at all.  Please look at the quoted
bit above.  There is nothing against having different
vebosity/granularity levels, quite to the contrary.  I just told you
that a run-time selection of them is everything but convenient and they
should rather be at runtime. 

> You seem to have mistakenly inferred I was impugning your judgement.  That
> was not the point.

No, the point was that you didn't read my message and/or assumes just
because I'm not 100% on your line of reasoning I'm against you.

> Coming back to your issue of a mount-time option for debug messages.  I am
> not sure any other file systems do that.  In general I would say having to
> switch on the debug config option and also change either the kernel command
> line or init scripts, seems in fact much less convenient.

It means you can be debug different bits without recompiling which is a
very good thing.  Especially if you're debugging moves from one area to
another.
--
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/