linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG vs generic DEBUG support in kernel.h

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1270713980.6754.94.camel@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:06:20 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>
Cc:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG vs generic DEBUG support in kernel.h

On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 17:20 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, probalby you can transform them to dev_dbg. But the "levels" do
not seem to be available with dev_dbg, so I guess you could nuke some
higher level messages?

-- 
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/