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

[Jim Cromie]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/