Re: [PATCH] dprintf implementation

[Vincent Pelletier <subdino2004@yahoo.fr>]

Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Your mailer did some bad stuff to this patch again...

Argh. I wonder if it is because I sign my mails...

> Weren't we going to have various flags to selectively enable debug 
> messages from particular components at runtime?

Iirc there were differences of point of view on that matter.
Okuji, what do you think about that idea ?

What about something like :
GRUB> DEBUG=D_PARTMAP|D_FS
GRUB> DEBUG_OUTPUT=D_SCREEN
GRUB> command_to_be_watched
file.c,line (D_PARTMAP): Partmap of type 'foo' found.
file2.c,line (D_FS): Superblock valid, fs 'bar'.
[...]

I see those points to be done :
- define | operator
- name-to-value conversion for constants (case-sensitive ?)
- value-to-name conversion for constants

What about modules ? It should be good to make them able to add new
error constants (maybe only one per module ?) that would match their own
dprintf.

Here are some prototypes as I think of them:
char *grub_debug_constants[sizeof(grub_debug_mask)*8];
int grub_debug_constant_request (const char *name);
   return value : -1 = no more available bit, -2 = duplicate name,
   otherwise 1<<value would give the position of the bit in the mask.
   That binary shift would be done by grub_dprintf. Checks for duplicate
   name (again, case sensitive ?).
void grub_dprintf (int value, char *format, ...);
   "value" would be the one returned by grub_debug_constant_request.
void grub_debug_constant_release (int value);

Vincent Pelletier