linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/25] dynamic_debug: use pr_debug instead of pr

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: <20110728182427.GD2659@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:24:27 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:	Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>, joe@...ches.com, gregkh@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gnb@...h.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/25] dynamic_debug: use pr_debug instead of pr_info

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:18:56AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> >> Changing pr_info() into pr_debug() inside the dynamic_debug
> >> implementation seems like a really bad idea to me. Such changes make
> >> it hard to find out via source code reading whether or not there is a
> >> risk that invoking one of these pr_debug() macros will cause infinite
> >> recursion.
> >
> > WRT earlier discussion (Joe, Jason):
> >
> >> I think these should be pr_debug.
> >> I know you're only using the current style.
> >>
> >> Jason, any reason these can not be converted?
> >
> > it should be ok, although we have to be careful not to use them in the
> > printing path, since that will cause a recursion.
> >
> > Also, if there is an issue with the dynamic debug code, it makes it more
> > of a pain to debug :)
> 
> With this approach enabling all debug printing in the dynamic_debug
> implementation requires both echoing into .../dynamic_debug/control
> and setting the "verbose" module parameter. That's not something I
> would call "elegant", but after all, I'm not the dynamic debug
> maintainer ...
> 
> Bart.

we certainly don't want to make ppl do both. why is the verbose param
still required?
--
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/