[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEjs5vxO/FRLUHhl@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 07:59:34 -0800
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: page_alloc: dump migrate-failed pages
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:04:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
< snip >
> > > Also are all those CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG* ifdefs necessary? Can we
> > > simply enable DYNAMIC_DEBUG for page_alloc as I've suggested above?
> >
> > They are different usecases.
> >
> > With DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE,
> > it works for only specific compile flags as you suggested.
> > (CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE is requirement to work DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE.
> >
> > With CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, user could enable/disable every dynamic
> > debug places without needing DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE flags for source
> > files.
> >
> > Both usecase makes sense to me.
>
> Well, this is more of a question for dynamic debugging maintainers. But
> it would be really great to reduce the ifdefery as much as possible.
I don't understand why this is something particular case which is okay
to lose either way to make dyndbg dynamic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists