On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 10:15:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 21:27 +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote: >> Dynamic debug function wiphy_dbg() is more convenient for debugging, >> and if user doesn't enable CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, it will fall back to >> normal static debug, just as what wiphy_debug() does. > > Hi. > > Your premise is not correct. > > wiphy_debug will always emit a message. > > wiphy_dbg will only emit a message when #DEBUG > is #defined or CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is enabled > and the message is specifically enabled by the > dynamic_debug control file. > Yes, you are right. wiphy_debug() will always print a debug level message. It's not true to wiphy_dbg(). I still prefer to use wiphy_dbg() to print debug messages, since it's "dynamic", and debug messages may not be needed in normal use. >> When all the users of wiphy_debug() are gone, wiphy_debug() can be >> removed. > > Not really. > Surely wiphy_debug() will be reserved, since wiphy_dbg() can't replace it. > Please use git format-patch --cover-letter when > sending a patch series so that these sorts of > replies can be done to the cover letter of the > series instead of individually. > > Using a cover-letter "[PATCH 0/N]" also makes it > easier for maintainers to send acknowledgements > if applying the entire series. I will resend the patch set with cover letter(excluding the last patch). Thanks for your comments. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
