From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134] helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Nzmma-0002I6-7b for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:08:13 +0000 Subject: Re: CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG vs generic DEBUG support in kernel.h From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Ferenc Wagner In-Reply-To: <87vdctzjn4.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> References: <878w9swhlv.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> <1268744759.20017.58.camel@localhost> <87vdctzjn4.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:06:20 +0300 Message-ID: <1270713980.6754.94.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 17:20 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Artem Bityutskiy writes: > > > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:55 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > > > >> include/linux/mtd/mtd.h contains the following snippet: > >> > >> #ifdef CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG > >> #define DEBUG(n, args...) \ > >> do { \ > >> if (n <= CONFIG_MTD_DEBUG_VERBOSE) \ > >> printk(KERN_INFO args); \ > >> } while(0) > >> > >> which conflicts with the generic debugging support in > >> include/linux/kernel.h: > >> > >> #ifdef DEBUG > >> #define pr_devel(fmt, ...) \ > >> printk(KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__) > >> > >> (that is, gcc emits redefinition warnings on modules which > >> #define DEBUG on their own and also include mtd.h) > >> Unfortunately, the DEBUG macro is used rather heavily under > >> drivers/mtd. Should we resolve this somehow or is it better > >> to just live with it? > > > > IMO, this MTD debug stuff is not very useful and could be just killed. > > Well, I found the mtdcore debugging somewhat useful. But anyway, > killing it would be about as much work as renaming the macro, or using > something standard as dev_(v)dbg or pr_debug/devel (btw. what's the > difference?) instead. I'm willing to do some mechanical work on either > one if you wish. Yeah, probalby you can transform them to dev_dbg. But the "levels" do not seem to be available with dev_dbg, so I guess you could nuke some higher level messages? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)