On 12/20/06, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the right thing to do is not to introduce another level of debugging.
>
> People want to debug or they don't in my opinion. I think we should do
> away with ccid3_pr_debug and ccid2_pr_debug. I always turn them all on
> or all off when working with testing (or add my own statements in).
If the way to go is a boolean, i.e. to debug or not to debug we have
to remove ccid{2,3}_pr_debug and stick to using dccp_pr_debug
everywhere, that would eliminate the loop as dccp.ko doesn't directly
uses any code from dccp_ipv[4,6]. ccid[2, 3] or tfrc.
Agree and that's what I prefer.
But I think that being able to debug just the dccp core, or just
ccid3, or just tfrc is better.
I'll go with your choice on this one. In the interim I'll carry on
using dccp_pr_debug for tfrc debugging as short on time.
Ian
--
Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4
Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com
WAND Network Research Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
