* Re: [xfs-masters] Re: question about potentially dead kernel config settings for XFS
[not found] ` <45BED165.1070501@sandeen.net>
@ 2007-01-30 7:06 ` David Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: David Chinner @ 2007-01-30 7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs-masters, David Chinner
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread