From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] dm-mpath: Make it easier to analyze requeuing behavior Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:29:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20170427192923.GB67119@redhat.com> References: <20170427171126.26814-1-bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> <20170427171126.26814-6-bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170427171126.26814-6-bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Bart Van Assche Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Thu, Apr 27 2017 at 1:11P -0400, Bart Van Assche wrote: > When debugging the dm-mpath driver it is important to know what > decisions have been taken with regard to requeuing. Hence this > patch that adds pr_debug() statements that report what decisions > have been taken. > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche > Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke > Cc: Christoph Hellwig I've not used pr_debug() before.. I generally sprinkle debugging when I'm actively chasing an issue and then throw it away once I sort the problem out. Documentation/process/coding-style.rst says: "Coming up with good debugging messages can be quite a challenge; and once you have them, they can be a huge help for remote troubleshooting. However debug message printing is handled differently than printing other non-debug messages. While the other pr_XXX() functions print unconditionally, pr_debug() does not; it is compiled out by default, unless either DEBUG is defined or CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set." So I assume you're leveraging DYNAMIC_DEBUG. Anyway, I'm not liking the idea of making this debugging part of the mpath code. But if there is a convincing argument for it please elaborate. Are you finding that things are going wrong on production systems and enabling pr_debug() in these paths would have, or has, saved you?