[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hSR7PkrqsXJyoSjWEHnCzLqbEfWJOaTo=zy8N9CkYGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:16:54 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: zhaoxiao <zhaoxiao@...ontech.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Use pm_pr_dbg() instead of pr_debug().
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:12 AM zhaoxiao <zhaoxiao@...ontech.com> wrote:
>
> These prints are useful if we're doing PM suspend debugging. Having them
> at pr_debug() level means that we need to either enable DEBUG in this
> file, or compile the kernel with dynamic debug capabilities. Both of
> these options have drawbacks like custom compilation or opting into all
> debug statements being included into the kernel image.
I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say here.
What's wrong with dynamic debug in particular?
> Given that we already have infrastructure to collect PM debugging information with
> CONFIG_PM_DEBUG and friends, let's change the pr_debug usage here to be
> pm_pr_dbg() instead so we can collect the wakeup information in the
> kernel logs.
What wakeup information do you mean?
This is all about manipulating dpm_list and your change would cause
pm_debug_messages to generate quite a bit of noise if enabled early.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists