From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: trenn@suse.de, linux-acpi <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI Debug - for test, devel and possibly even for production kernels
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:56:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705311556.17966.lenb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84144f020705311157n6bede2c7ga234d70823d5869f@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 31 May 2007 14:57, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> > (This should efficiently be the same as the proposed big patch a year
> > ago from Pekka Enberg, just a bit smaller and should make ACPICA and
> > kernel/linux people happy:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=113699535303722&w=2)
>
> No, you're keeping these obfuscating macros around:
>
> +#define return_VOID return
> +#define return_ACPI_STATUS(s) return(s)
> +#define return_VALUE(s) return(s)
> +#define return_UINT8(s) return(s)
>
> Making the ACPI code look like regular Linux kernel code (or even
> regular C for that matter) was the whole point of my patch. Your patch
> doesn't change that.
I think that Thomas's point is that he is optimally removing
function tracing via #ifdef.
Your 600KB patch, on the other hand, permanently removed the feature
and touched every file in ACPICA.
The net effect to the user is the same, the ability to enable
ACPI_DEBUG and not enable ACPICA function tracing.
As I probably wrote a year ago, it isn't viable to completely
remove the tracing code --
until Linux reaches a point where vendors certify that their
BIOS is compatible with Linux before they ship, rather than the Linux
community having to debug some Windows-compatible systems into
Linux-compatibility well after they have shipped into the field.
-Len
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-31 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-31 15:20 [PATCH] ACPI Debug - for test, devel and possibly even for production kernels Thomas Renninger
2007-05-31 16:49 ` Len Brown
2007-06-01 13:52 ` Thomas Renninger
2007-06-03 22:30 ` Len Brown
2007-05-31 18:57 ` Pekka Enberg
2007-05-31 19:56 ` Len Brown [this message]
2007-06-07 20:08 ` Pavel Machek
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=200705311556.17966.lenb@kernel.org \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
/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