Re: [PATCH 3/6] dyndbg: rationalize verbosity

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:37:32PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> change current v*pr_info() calls to fit this new scheme:
> 
> -1 module level activity: add/remove, etc
> -2 command ingest, splitting
>    per >control write
> -3 command parsing - many v1s here now
> -4 per-site changes - was v2
> 
> -2 is new, to isolate a problem where a stress-test script (which
> feeds large multi-command strings) would produce short writes,
> truncating last command and causing parsing errors, which confused
> test results.  The 1st fix was to use syswrite in the script, to
> deliver full proper commands.
> 
> -4 gets per-callsite "changed:" pr-infos, which are very noisy during
> stress tests, and obscure v1-3 messages.
> 
> Update docs verbose example to 3 per its comment (potential conflict here)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../admin-guide/dynamic-debug-howto.rst       |  2 +-
>  lib/dynamic_debug.c                           | 22 ++++++++++---------
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/dynamic-debug-howto.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/dynamic-debug-howto.rst
> index b119b8277b3e..ab28d200f016 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/dynamic-debug-howto.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/dynamic-debug-howto.rst
> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ Examples
>    // boot-args example, with newlines and comments for readability
>    Kernel command line: ...
>      // see whats going on in dyndbg=value processing
> -    dynamic_debug.verbose=1
> +    dynamic_debug.verbose=3

Did you just change the user/kernel interface here?  What happens to the
systems that were using '1' as a value?  Do they have to be changed?

Why is this needed?

thanks,

greg k-h