On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:10:24AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2020-06-19 09:45:55, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2020-06-18 13:11:05, jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yes, I'm wondering as well if people are really going to use the > > > > new flags and filter flags - I mentioned that here: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/12/732 > > > > > > yes, I saw, and replied there. > > > > No, the repply only explains how the interface might be used. There is > > no prove that people would actually use it. > > > > > but since that was v1, and we're on v3, we should refresh. > > > > > > the central use-case is above, 1-liner version summarized here: > > > > > > 1- enable sites as you chase a problem with +up > > > 2- examine them with grep =pu > > > 3- change the set to suit, either by adding or subtracting callsites. > > > 4- continue debugging, and changing callsites to suit > > > 5- grep =pu control > ~/debugging-session-task1-callsites > > > 6- echo up-p >control # disable for now, leave u-set for later > > > 7- do other stuff > > > 8 echo uP+p >control # reactivate useful debug-state and resume > > > > In short, this feature allows repeatedly enable/disable some > > slowly growing maze of debug messages. Who need this, please? !!! > > > > If I am debugging then I add/remove debug messages. But I never > > enable/disable all of them repeatedly. > > Not to say that I usually need to reboot when I reproduce the problem > and before I could try it again. So all dyndbg flags gets lost > between two tests anyway. I agree, this feels way too complex for no good reason. Users only need a specific set of "run this command to enable messages and send us the logs" instructions. Nothing complex like this at all. thanks, greg k-h
