From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: dprintk() and gdprintk() to be compiled out when NDEBUG Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: <54DB301A.9090206@citrix.com> References: <54DB17DC020000780005ED86@mail.emea.novell.com> <54DB2977.7020702@citrix.com> <54DB3DE0020000780005EF1D@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YLUcs-0004f1-Re for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:34:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54DB3DE0020000780005EF1D@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/02/15 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.02.15 at 11:05, wrote: >> On 11/02/15 07:50, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> I'd like to propose to honor the 'd' in these functions' names (which >>> I understand to mean "debug") in that such functions should be >>> no-ops in non-debug builds. I'd then be inclined to introduce a >>> gprintk() automatically adding XENLOG_GUEST and the printing of >>> current using the %pv format. Quite likely the (mis-)use of these >>> two functions may then temporarily result in messages not meant >>> to be debugging ones to become hidden in non-debug builds. If >>> others agree, I'd try to make one pass through the tree to try to >>> identify such, but I'd like to ask others to also keep an eye on that >>> aspect. >> I agree. I suspect many of the existing gdprintk()s will need to turn >> into dprintk()s. > Maybe, but that's yet another topic (unless you meant gprintk()s > instead of dprintk()s). I did mean gprintk(). Sorry. ~Andrew