[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b0fade06c46da0a469266738c684ba55d8e39f0.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:05:27 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>
Cc: jbaron@...mai.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...uxfoundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/24] dyndbg: WIP towards debug-print-class based
callsite controls
On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 15:45 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2020-06-13 09:57:34, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > There are *lots* of ad-hoc debug printing solutions in kernel,
> > this is a 1st attempt at providing a common mechanism for many of them.
>
> I agree that it might make sense to provide some common mechanism.
[]
> My problem with this approach is that it is too generic. Each class
> would have different meaning in each subsystem.
>
> It might help to replace any existing variants. But it would be hard
> for developers debugging the code. They would need to study/remember
> the meaning of these groups for particular subsystems. They would
> need to set different values for different messages.
>
> Could you please provide more details about the potential users?
> Would be possible to find some common patterns and common
> meaning of the groups?
I doubt the utility of common patterns.
Verbosity is common but groupings are not.
Look at the DRM patterns vs other groups.
$ git grep 'MODULE_PARM_DESC.*debug'
Powered by blists - more mailing lists