[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080618205257.GA4147@ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:52:57 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
joe@...ches.com, greg@...ah.com, nick@...k-andrew.net,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] dynamic debug - core infrastructure
Hi!
> This is the core patch that implements a new dynamic debug infrastructure.
>
> Each kernel sub-system seems to have its own way of dealing with debugging
> statements. Some of these methods include 'dprintk', 'pr_debug', 'dev_debug',
> 'DEBUGP'. There are also a myriad of ways of enabling these statements. Some
> require CONFIG_ parameters to be set, some provide /proc interfaces, while
> others require 'DEBUG' to be set in header files. Most of these methods also
> require kernel re-compiles in order to set the appropriate knobs.
>
> I've attempted to standardize how how the kernel deals with debugging
> statements, both from the user as well as the kernel perspective. Why aren't
> these debug statements made into printk(KERN_DEBUG), and be done with it? The
> problem here is that 'dprintk', 'pr_debug', etc. were introduced b/c they
> are often provide too verbose a level of output, could potentially adversly
> affect system performance if they were always enabled, and they clutter up the
> system logs.
Its good that someone is finallu cleaning this up. Thanks!
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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