From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG cost Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:48:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20041031184823.GA5578@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1099029802.143.226.camel@d845pe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1099029802.143.226.camel@d845pe> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Len Brown Cc: ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi! > The static size of the built-in part of ACPI nearly doubles with > CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG=y. > > Thinking we should have a less heavyweight DEBUG build option for use by > production kernels -- any volunteers to look into it? Its worse than that, it looks very ugly in the sources. See for example return_VALUE() macro... I think acpi debugging crap^H^H^H^Hstuff should be simply removed in favor of people running kgdb or something like that. ["If you want to print all names of functions being entered, you should probably be using debugger in the first place"] When debugging acpi I end up doing printk's anyway because those built-in macros produce just too much of output... Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click