On 12/19/06, Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Agreed, in the short term just use dccp_pr_debug in tfrc, it should just work.
- Arnaldo
-
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
