On 2018-12-06 12:41 p.m., Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 10:23 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-12-06 3:51 a.m., Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 10:40 +0800, Zhang, Jerry(Junwei) wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/18 12:56 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>>>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following cases are possible for pr_debug():
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG disabled
>>>>> a) DEBUG not defined: pr_debug() translates to no_printk(...), i.e.
>>>>> it never generates any output.
>>>>> b) DEBUG defined: pr_debug() translates to printk(KERN_DEBUG ...),
>>>>> i.e. it generates output which doesn't appear in dmesg by default,
>>>>> can be enabled dynamically.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG enabled: pr_debug() translates to
>>>>> dynamic_pr_debug()
>>>>> a) DEBUG not defined: dynamic_pr_debug() generates no output by
>>>>> default, can be enabled dynamically.
>>>>> b) DEBUG defined: dynamic_pr_debug() generates output by default,
>>>>> can be disabled dynamically.
>>>>>
>>>>> The intention for drm_debug_printer() is to generate output which
>>>>> doesn't appear in dmesg by default, but can be enabled dynamically, i.e.
>>>>> cases 1b) and 2a). However, defining DEBUG unconditionally gave us 2b)
>>>>> instead of 2a) with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 79a5ad2fdb3c ("drm: Enable pr_debug() for drm_printer")
>>>
>>> I very much doubt this is a fix.
>>>
>>> Did you read the commit log for this commit?
>>>
>>> It says "make sure it will always produce output"
>>
>> I thought the commit log covered this, suggestions for improvement welcome.
>>
>> Chris' change addressed case 1a), but also took us from 2a) to 2b). But
>> we want 2a)
>
>> I suspect Chris missed that pr_debug()'s output is visible by default if
>> CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG and DEBUG are both defined.
>
> I believe you and Chris have different goals and that your
> point of 2b is
> misguided.
>
> I think the language used in the Chris' commit log is
> plain ans obvious. 'always produce output'.
That was probably meant as "make sure there always can be output", which
isn't the case with 1a (no_printk suppresses the output at compile time,
the strings might not even exist in the binaries).
In contrast to the 2b case, the pr_debug output isn't visible by default
with 1b, so the latter doesn't fit "always produce output" either. But
Chris' initial follow-up in this thread seems to confirm my assumption
that his change was about 1a/b.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
