Re: [PATCH] plist: replace pr_debug with printk in plist_test()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 07 May 2014 11:10:38 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 10:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 May 2014 10:21:28 -0400 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > It would be even better if the note could clarify that sometimes it is
> > > ok to use printk(KERN_DEBUG
> > 
> > Exactly. I think it's rather stupid to have to do a #define DEBUG to
> > have pr_debug() print in general.
> > 
> > I see no reason to have pr_debug() be anything different than the other
> > pr_*() functions.
> 
> pr_debug is meant to be disabled and have _no_ runtime
> effect unless DEBUG is #defined.

I understand why it does it, but having pr_debug() named just like
pr_info(), pr_notice(), pr_warning(), pr_err(), pr_crit(), pr_alert(),
pr_emerg(), where all those are just printk(<LOGLEVEL>...) *except* for
pr_debug(). That's inconsistent and wrong.

pr_debug() should have been just printk(KERN_DEBUG ...) as that follows
convention. Not something that gets disabled by default. For that, we
should have given it a different name. That's the point I was trying to
make.

Yes, it's somewhat too late as pr_debug() is all over the place, but
maybe when things slow down (Ha! like that will ever happen ... "are we
done yet?"), then we could do a massive clean up and rename pr_debug()
to something not so confusing in its usage compared to the other pr_*()
prints.

-- Steve

--
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/