From: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] Re: question about potentially dead kernel config settings for XFS
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:06:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070130070636.GG33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45BED165.1070501@sandeen.net>
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:02:29PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:24:29AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >>>user-configurable kernel setting, it should not have a
> >>>configuration macro name starting with "CONFIG_" -- that should be
> >>>reserved for configurable settings defined in Kconfig files.
> >>Yup, and that's exactly what we use them for.
> >>
> >>However, we don't anyone to use them in mainline because they are
> >>for debugging or features that aren't in mainline, but they are not
> >>easily of ussefully separable from the core XFS code. Hence we use
> >>CONFIG_XFS_??? options that you can't turn on in mainline to
> >>enforce this - making them CONFIG_XFS_??? options means we don't
> >>have to maintain different code in the dev tree and mainline and IMO
> >>that is a Good Thing.
>
> One thing that may not be crystal clear from the thread (?) is that if
> you download xfs cvs, you will in fact find these in the Kconfig files:
>
> config XFS_DEBUG
> bool "XFS Debugging support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> depends on XFS_FS && EXPERIMENTAL
> ...etc
>
> but they aren't pushed out to kernel.org...
I thought i'd said that up front. Thanks for clarifying, Eric.
> David, is CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG really so bad to expose?
Probably not - I just don't like exposing something that almost
everyone who runs XFS should not turn on....
> CONFIG_XFS_TRACE
> -is- pretty useless w/o KDB, though, IIRC...
Agreed (until we put a relayfs type interface on it for live
tracing), but then again CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG is also pretty useless you
have a debugger.....
> I suppose it would be a real headache to remove the unused CONFIG_FOO
> stuff from kernel.org and leave them in cvs...
Yes, that's kind of my point.
> In the end it's not the most pressing problem,
Waaaaay down my list.
> although it adds to the
> perception of swaths of dead code in xfs.
Must be what is using all the stack space, eh? ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-30 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <45BED165.1070501@sandeen.net>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070130070636.GG33919298@melbourne.sgi.com \
--to=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox