On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:35:59AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > > > > Does dynamic debug offer an "is the message two lines below enabled" test? > > > Simply changing the "#ifdef DEBUG" for dbg_port_buf() > > > to "#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG)" > > > is probably not acceptable due to the overhead of dbg_port_buf()? > > > > I don't understand your question. Doesn't dbg_port_buf need to be > > defined whenever dynamic debugging is enabled? > > > > Alternatively, the definition of dbg_port_buf (and related routines) in > > the !defined(DEBUG) case could be changed; you could add > > > > buf[0] = 0; > > > > That way you wouldn't get garbage out, although you wouldn't get > > anything useful either. > > The ideal solution I'm looking for gives useful output > when dynamic debugging is enabled for ehci, but does no > useless string formatting when CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is y > but the dynamic debug for ehci is disabled. But there is no such thing as dynamic debug for ehci, is there? There's a separate dynamic debug setting for each dev_dbg statement. So your ideal solution makes no sense. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
