From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: Please revert "debug: Make CONFIG_EXPERT select CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL to unhide debug options"
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:48:11 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111010084811.GG4586@localhost.pp.htv.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111010072946.GA29035@elte.hu>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:29:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>...
> I think you are wrong not just about that detail but about the whole
> premise of your complaint as well:
>
> > config DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
> > - bool "Verbose BUG() reporting (adds 70K)" if DEBUG_KERNEL && EXPERT
> > + bool "Verbose BUG() reporting (adds 70K)" if EXPERT
> >
> > This part of the patch would have been the correct and complete
> > solution for DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE.
>
> Not really - it's a debugging-only option and when i turn on
> CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL I expect to have full config control over all
> debug options - with sane defaults provided.
Then you would have to remove the dependency on EXPERT from the prompt,
and allow unsetting DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE with EXPERT=n, DEBUG_KERNEL=y.
Note that this is completely unrelated to the commit we are discussing,
since commit f505c553 has no effect in the EXPERT=n case you are
discussing here.
> I definitely don't want a debugging option to depend on
> CONFIG_EXPERT.
DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE does not depend on EXPERT.
But EXPERT is currently required for disabling it.
This part of our discussion boils down to the following options:
1. DEBUG_KERNEL allows a user to enable additional debugging
2. DEBUG_KERNEL gives a user full control over all debug options
Traditionally it was 1., to tell a user reporting a bug that he should
enable additional debugging in his kernel - without him accidentally
disabling useful debugging.
Again, this part of the discussion is unrelated to commit f505c553.
> CONFIG_EXPERT is a superset to all that: it implies config control
> over all debug options *and* over many other kernel components as
> well.
I don't see the advantage that EXPERT=y is now unconditionally enabling
the DEBUG_KERNEL knob.
When I am an "expert", why can't I still decide myself globally if I
want to enable more debugging or not?
Another problem is that we have code using "#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL"
so enabling EXPERT for making your kernel smaller can make your kernel
bigger, but such usages should anyway get own config options.
> This is a pretty easy model to think about.
There are many options in the kernel that only enable seeing other
config options.
With that model, shouldn't EXPERT also have
select MISC_FILESYSTEMS
and many other similar select's?
The point I am trying to make here is that there are many convenience
config options that only exist to allow a user to hide a bunch of
options he is not interested in, and DEBUG_KERNEL is one of them. [1]
> > The crazy select added in commit f505c553 is wrong.
>
> Why? Your original message does not explain it.
It is not needed for what it was claimed it was needed for,
and it is a bad idea in general.
If I didn't explain that properly that was my fault,
I hope the explanation in this email is better.
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
cu
Adrian
[1] ignoring the buggy code using "#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL"
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-10 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-30 13:42 Please revert "debug: Make CONFIG_EXPERT select CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL to unhide debug options" Adrian Bunk
2011-09-30 15:05 ` Josh Triplett
2011-09-30 15:25 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-09-30 15:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-09-30 15:54 ` Adrian Bunk
2011-09-30 15:50 ` Adrian Bunk
2011-10-10 7:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-10 8:48 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2011-10-10 9:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-10-10 10:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-10 12:13 ` Adrian Bunk
2011-10-12 8:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-10-20 21:41 ` Adrian Bunk
2011-10-21 8:19 ` Michal Marek
2011-10-21 9:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2011-10-21 12:37 ` Michal Marek
2011-10-21 16:12 ` Adrian Bunk
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=20111010084811.GG4586@localhost.pp.htv.fi \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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