Re: dynamic debug

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:23 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Joe, Jim, Jason,
> 
> Joe's conversion of mac80211 to pr_debug() was pretty much a disaster,

First I've heard of it.

> now people have to first select what they want in Kconfig, and then
> still enable dynamic debug in debugfs...

This doesn't parse for me.
Please illustrate further.

>  That doesn't make any sense at
> all, and requires teaching everybody new tricks, so I'm basically
> reverting it for now in favour of pr_info() instead of pr_debug().

Why not just add #define DEBUG?

> I'd actually not mind using pr_debug() if it meant we could get rid of
> all the Kconfig symbols, but that's not possible.
> 
> The biggest problem here really is that the dynamic debug infrastructure
> lets us enable messages at runtime, which is great, but the granularity
> is useless since you only have these possibilities:

What I think dyn_debug needs is a mask/level control.
so you can do the equivalent of
	echo val > /somewhere
to control the tested against value

see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/21/128