[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZwSEJv2HgI0cD4J@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 07:17:36 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, leit@...a.com,
"open list:NETWORKING [IPv4/IPv6]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CLANG/LLVM BUILD SUPPORT:Keyword:b(?i:clang|llvm)b" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/ipv6: resolve warning in ip6_fib.c
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:13:53AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/5/24 10:39 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > -#if RT6_DEBUG >= 3
> > -#define RT6_TRACE(x...) pr_debug(x)
> > -#else
> > -#define RT6_TRACE(x...) do { ; } while (0)
> > -#endif
> > +#define RT6_TRACE(x...) do { if (RT6_DEBUG > 3) pr_debug(x); } while (0)
> >
> > struct rt6_info;
> > struct fib6_info;
>
> I question the value of RT6_TRACE vs just using pr_debug; pr_debug has
> zero cost until enabled and can be enabled by file or line. Not
> requiring a kernel build is actual better.
>
> [cc'ed Wei who added the macro]
I also questioned it.
Anyway, if we don't hear any strong opinion in favor of RT6_TRACE(), I
will replace it by pr_debug() in a v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists