James Courtier-Dutton <James@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is there a particular debugging coding style that we should adopt for > all the kernel code. Err, probably. But we'd need to have a 1000-email argument first. Right now many subsystems and often many individual drivers go and implement their own set of debugging macros and knobs to twiddle. This was a great source of fun for me in trying to support gcc-2.95.x - each time a new debug macro got implemented I had to go in there (again) and apply the gcc-2.95.x-macro-expansion-bug-workaround to it. Yes, one common toolset with a common way of controlling it would be much more sensible than the present chaos. I count 163 separate definitions of dprintk(), and that's excluding all the non-x86 arch and include dirs. > For example, > kconfig option in order to compile a module/section of core code for > debug work. > A sysfs file to then control the debug level for each module. > A debug module option, in the cases where a particular level of debug is > required at module load time, and before the sysfs entry exists. > If particularly fine grained debug control is needed, the module could > have multiple entries in the sysfs to control different classes of debug > output. > Something like that.. Just don't cc me while you work it out ;) - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
