Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] dbg_rw_guest_mem: Conditionally enable debug log output

[Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>]

On 01/10/14 16:15, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 01/10/14 12:13, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 12:56 -0500, Don Slutz wrote:
>>> On 01/09/14 11:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09.01.14 at 17:08, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>> Based on Mukesh's statement, attached is the rebased version of 
>>>>> this patch
>>>>> (labeled v3).  I included Mukesh's ack.
>>>> Unless this is meant just for reviewing purposes (albeit even then
>>>> it's likely problematic), could you please get used to sending
>>>> patch revisions with mail subjects (i.e. not retaining the prior
>>>> version indicator), so there is a reasonable chance to reconstruct
>>>> things by searching just the titles in a mail archive. (It's still 
>>>> fine -
>>>> at least as far as I'm concerned - to reply to an earlier version,
>>>> thus tying things into a single thread on the archive.)
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>> I will try to.  I had not noticed this in the past.
>> Thanks, as Jan says it is very confusing.
>>
>> If there are tools things outstanding in this series which should be for
>> 4.4 then I don't know what is where or what has been acked.
>>
>> Please can resend whatever you think is outstanding for 4.4 as a fresh
>> thread with a suitable vN larger than any of the ones mentioned in any
>> of the replies here and with the acks collected.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
> Will do.  I expect ~1 hour to rebase, build and quick test.
>
>    -Don


I have send out v4 of the rest. Adjusted this thread to v3.  I did not 
include this one in the 4.4 because:

1) Is is debug logging.

2) not 100% sure on volatile, __read_mostly,  __used , __used__, and 
maybe drop static.

3) Most developers cannot change dbg_debug value without a re-compile. 
And then volatile is not needed for them.

So I think it is fine to delay until 4.5 is open for this.

     -Don Slutz