From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755319Ab1HCS1f (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:27:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65153 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755187Ab1HCS1U (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:27:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:27:09 -0400 From: Jason Baron To: Jim Cromie Cc: Bart Van Assche , joe@perches.com, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gnb@fmeh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/25] dynamic_debug: use pr_debug instead of pr_info Message-ID: <20110803182709.GA2462@redhat.com> References: <1311630170-26057-1-git-send-email-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <1311630170-26057-4-git-send-email-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <20110728182427.GD2659@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 03:15:35PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jason Baron wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:18:56AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Jim Cromie wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> >> Changing pr_info() into pr_debug() inside the dynamic_debug > >> >> implementation seems like a really bad idea to me. Such changes make > >> >> it hard to find out via source code reading whether or not there is a > >> >> risk that invoking one of these pr_debug() macros will cause infinite > >> >> recursion. > >> > > >> > WRT earlier discussion (Joe, Jason): > >> > > >> >> I think these should be pr_debug. > >> >> I know you're only using the current style. > >> >> > >> >> Jason, any reason these can not be converted? > >> > > >> > it should be ok, although we have to be careful not to use them in the > >> > printing path, since that will cause a recursion. > >> > > >> > Also, if there is an issue with the dynamic debug code, it makes it more > >> > of a pain to debug :) > >> > >> With this approach enabling all debug printing in the dynamic_debug > >> implementation requires both echoing into .../dynamic_debug/control > >> and setting the "verbose" module parameter. That's not something I > >> would call "elegant", but after all, I'm not the dynamic debug > >> maintainer ... > >> > >> Bart. > > > > we certainly don't want to make ppl do both. why is the verbose param > > still required? > > > > Its needed to selectively enable pr_info()s, > which I use cuz they happen too early for pr_debug() to be enabled. ok, then I would suggest we just stay with the verbose flag, since we don't want make ppl jump through two hoops, and as a bonus we avoid any potential recursive issue. thanks, -Jason