On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:48 PM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Steven Rostedt > > Sent: 21 August 2020 01:36 > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:13:00 +0800 > > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:23 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:14:12 +0800 > > > > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Technically, we could only initialize the trace_printk buffers > > > > > when the print env is switched, to avoid the build error and > > > > > unconditional boot-time warning, but I assume this printing > > > > > framework will eventually get removed when the driver moves out > > > > > of staging? > > > > > > > > Perhaps this should be converting into a trace event. Look at what bpf > > > > did for their bpf_trace_printk(). > > > > > > > > The more I think about it, the less I like this series. > > > > > > To make it clear, the primary goal of this series is to get rid of > > > trace_printk sprinkled in the kernel by making sure some randconfig > > > builds fail. Since my v2, there already has been one more added (the > > > one that this patch removes), so I'd like to land 2/3 ASAP to prevent > > > even more from being added. > > > > > > Looking at your reply on 1/3, I think we are aligned on that goal? Is > > > there some other approach you'd recommend? > > > > > > Now, I'm not pretending my fixes are the best possible ones, but I > > > would much rather have the burden of converting to trace events on the > > > respective driver maintainers. (btw is there a short > > > documentation/tutorial that I could link to in these patches, to help > > > developers understand what is the recommended way now?) > > > > > > > I like the goal, but I guess I never articulated the problem I have > > with the methodology. > > > > trace_printk() is meant to be a debugging tool. Something that people > > can and do sprinkle all over the kernel to help them find a bug in > > areas that are called quite often (where printk() is way too slow). > > > > The last thing I want them to deal with is adding a trace_printk() with > > their distro's config (or a config from someone that triggered the bug) > > only to have the build to fail, because they also need to add a config > > value. > > > > I add to the Cc a few developers I know that use trace_printk() in this > > fashion. I'd like to hear their view on having to add a config option > > to make trace_printk work before they test a config that is sent to > > them. > > Is it worth having three compile-time options: > 1) trace_printk() ignored. CONFIG_TRACE=n (now) > 2) trace_printk() enabled. CONFIG_TRACE=y (now) > 3) trace_printk() generates a compile time error. CONFIG_TRACE=y and CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK=n (my patch) > > Normal kernel builds would ignore calls. > Either a config option or a module option (etc) would enable it. > A config option that 'rand-config' builds would turn on would > generate compile-time errors. Yes, a config option is exactly what my patch 2/2 does. And see Steven's argument. > > David > > - > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) >
