[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vdctzjn4.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:20:31 +0100
From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>
To: dedekind1@...il.com
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG vs generic DEBUG support in kernel.h
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:55 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> include/linux/mtd/mtd.h contains the following snippet:
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG
>> #define DEBUG(n, args...) \
>> do { \
>> if (n <= CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG_VERBOSE) \
>> printk(KERN_INFO args); \
>> } while(0)
>>
>> which conflicts with the generic debugging support in
>> include/linux/kernel.h:
>>
>> #ifdef DEBUG
>> #define pr_devel(fmt, ...) \
>> printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>>
>> (that is, gcc emits redefinition warnings on modules which
>> #define DEBUG on their own and also include mtd.h)
>> Unfortunately, the DEBUG macro is used rather heavily under
>> drivers/mtd. Should we resolve this somehow or is it better
>> to just live with it?
>
> IMO, this MTD debug stuff is not very useful and could be just killed.
Well, I found the mtdcore debugging somewhat useful. But anyway,
killing it would be about as much work as renaming the macro, or using
something standard as dev_(v)dbg or pr_debug/devel (btw. what's the
difference?) instead. I'm willing to do some mechanical work on either
one if you wish.
--
Regards,
Feri.
--
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