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

Jim Cromie
2011-08-10T19:29:09Z

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:

trimmed

>>
>> alright, I can live with that, but Id like to note the loss of selectivity
>> in the verbose-only approach before capitulating:
>>
>> the pr_info()s in _proc_ routines are quite noisy when enabled.
>>
>> in my current config, which has 537 callsites,
>> enabling all those pr_debug()s unselectively, ie:
>>
>> Kernel command line: ... ddebug_query="module dynamic_debug +pflt; "
>> loglevel=8 dynamic_debug.verbose=1
>>
>> and doing : ~# cat /dbg/dynamic_debug/control
>> logs 836 lines like
>> [2573] ddebug_proc_next:866: called m=c6f99a40 p=c88955d0 *pos=427
>> [2573] ddebug_proc_show:888: called m=c6f99a40 p=c88955e8
>>
>> Not completely overwhelming perhaps, but nice to silence.
>>
>> Before switching to pr_debug, I had changed those proc pr_infos to:
>> if (verbose >= 10)
>>     pr_info(...)
>>
>> that quiets things nicely, and is knowable via modinfo,
>> is that addition acceptable ?
>>
>
> why do you have '10' here, isn't it just, if (verbose) ?

Because the ddebug_proc_show and ddebug_proc_next routines
are called a lot (~500 times each on my build) when looking at control file.
For my needs, there wasnt much info in them..

As to the number, I wanted to leave space for other increments
of verbosity, and I couldnt resist an homage to Spinal Tap:
This verbosity goes to eleven !

If you'd prefer, I can switch to a flags/mask approach,
or drop back to pure boolean.

>
>> BTW, are you aiming for tip tree ?
>
> The dynamic debug patches have been going in via Greg KH's device
> tree. Now that the merge window has closed, I going to re-send the patch
> series that I had pending. You can then send your series on top of that,
> if you'd like.
>

Sure, that works. Ill watch for it.
Mine is 'ready' subject to changes in your series, and pushback.

> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
>