From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: elseifthen@gmx.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwclock: fix debug regression To: kerolasa@gmail.com References: <975e1e00-fab6-e539-8b92-5388e33d7f16@gmx.com> Cc: Karel Zak , util-linux From: J William Piggott Message-ID: <2e56d19b-e8e8-576c-c071-92e181162512@gmx.com> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:09:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 List-ID: On 11/19/2017 04:51 AM, Sami Kerola wrote: > That is probably fine as intermediate issue fix. It would be nice to > see in longer term move to use debug.h. Then ctl->debug could > be made single bit switch that turns on messaging it does, and > all internal developer debugging stuff would be done with > HWCLOCK_DEBUG_ bits. Assuming done this way adding more > debuging levels is appropriate. > > FYI login-utils/su-common.c is pretty good DBG example. > Hi Sami, I agree and so does Karel. He brought it up when I first started contributing to ul back in 2014. https://marc.info/?l=util-linux-ng&m=141415311703313&w=2 Karel Zak wrote: > Good point, then it would be better to [keep] --debug independent on > HWCLOCK_DEBUG=. > > But I still think that for so complex tool like hwclock we need a > real debug output for developers / bug reporters. The current --debug > is more like --verbose we have in another tools. It's on my radar and TODO list. I just do not know when I will get to it. I've been trying to reduce the current 'debug' output as I go. Hopefully that will make splitting verbose/debug and adding debug.h easier.