From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933121Ab0JFVBl (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 17:01:41 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:56500 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933107Ab0JFVBj (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 17:01:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:59:37 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Thomas Renninger , gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbaron@redhat.com Subject: Re: Dynamic Debug module.ddebug fake param enhancements V4 Message-ID: <20101006205937.GA6184@kroah.com> References: <20100920184441.GA2915@redhat.com> <201009270909.18490.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <201009281425.19070.trenn@suse.de> <201009280822.11675.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201009280822.11675.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:22:11AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 06:25:18 am Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Greg: Do you mind pushing the first (1/4, V4) and the last (4/4) > > patch into your tree for linux-next and leave the two PNP patches > > out, please. I've applied them now. > > More PNP related discussion, below. > > > > On Monday 27 September 2010 17:09:18 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Monday, September 27, 2010 02:25:46 am Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > > > > > What do you think (dev_dbg vs printk(KERN_DEBUG...)? > > ... > > > With the exception of the ones in pnp/resource.c that I want to convert > > > to dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG), I think all the pnp_dbg() uses are things > > > I used during PNP development and haven't ever needed since. > > > > Ok. Sounds sane. > > I used the PNP parts as it nicely showed what the > > module.ddebug boot param is doing, but I agree it hasn't much > > advantage for PNP. > > > > Whatabout compiling pnp in one module namespace, the first > > of the two PNP patches? > > [2/4] looks reasonable to me. And this one. > > > E.g. attached patch would be an on top patch which provides no > > functional change, just that a pnp.debug would be a module param: > > cat /sys/module/pnp/parameters/debug > > As does the one below. And this one. So that left 3/4 out of the series applied to my tree. If this is incorrect, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h