From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:06:36 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] Re: question about potentially dead kernel config settings for XFS Message-ID: <20070130070636.GG33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20070128203911.GC33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070129142819.GY33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> <45BED165.1070501@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45BED165.1070501@sandeen.net> To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, David Chinner List-ID: 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