Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] media: atomisp: Only use trace_printk if allowed

[Nicolas Boichat]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:48 PM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Steven Rostedt
> > Sent: 21 August 2020 01:36
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:13:00 +0800
> > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:23 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:14:12 +0800
> > > > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Technically, we could only initialize the trace_printk buffers
> > > > > when the print env is switched, to avoid the build error and
> > > > > unconditional boot-time warning, but I assume this printing
> > > > > framework will eventually get removed when the driver moves out
> > > > > of staging?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps this should be converting into a trace event. Look at what bpf
> > > > did for their bpf_trace_printk().
> > > >
> > > > The more I think about it, the less I like this series.
> > >
> > > To make it clear, the primary goal of this series is to get rid of
> > > trace_printk sprinkled in the kernel by making sure some randconfig
> > > builds fail. Since my v2, there already has been one more added (the
> > > one that this patch removes), so I'd like to land 2/3 ASAP to prevent
> > > even more from being added.
> > >
> > > Looking at your reply on 1/3, I think we are aligned on that goal? Is
> > > there some other approach you'd recommend?
> > >
> > > Now, I'm not pretending my fixes are the best possible ones, but I
> > > would much rather have the burden of converting to trace events on the
> > > respective driver maintainers. (btw is there a short
> > > documentation/tutorial that I could link to in these patches, to help
> > > developers understand what is the recommended way now?)
> > >
> >
> > I like the goal, but I guess I never articulated the problem I have
> > with the methodology.
> >
> > trace_printk() is meant to be a debugging tool. Something that people
> > can and do sprinkle all over the kernel to help them find a bug in
> > areas that are called quite often (where printk() is way too slow).
> >
> > The last thing I want them to deal with is adding a trace_printk() with
> > their distro's config (or a config from someone that triggered the bug)
> > only to have the build to fail, because they also need to add a config
> > value.
> >
> > I add to the Cc a few developers I know that use trace_printk() in this
> > fashion. I'd like to hear their view on having to add a config option
> > to make trace_printk work before they test a config that is sent to
> > them.
>
> Is it worth having three compile-time options:
> 1) trace_printk() ignored.

CONFIG_TRACE=n (now)

> 2) trace_printk() enabled.

CONFIG_TRACE=y (now)

> 3) trace_printk() generates a compile time error.

CONFIG_TRACE=y and CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK=n (my patch)

>
> Normal kernel builds would ignore calls.
> Either a config option or a module option (etc) would enable it.
> A config option that 'rand-config' builds would turn on would
> generate compile-time errors.

Yes, a config option is exactly what my patch 2/2 does. And see
Steven's argument.


>
>         David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>