Re: [PATCH 03/25] dynamic_debug: use pr_debug instead of pr_info

Jason Baron
2011-08-03T18:27:35Z

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 03:15:35PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> 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 <jim.cromie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> 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