On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 16:34 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 07:26 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:23 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Joe, Jim, Jason, > > > > > > Joe's conversion of mac80211 to pr_debug() was pretty much a disaster, > > > > First I've heard of it. > > Well I guess you didn't have the pleasure of having to work with bug > reporters whose mac80211 messages suddenly completely disappeared ... Nor it seems the pleasure of interaction with a maintainer that forwards notices like this. > > > now people have to first select what they want in Kconfig, and then > > > still enable dynamic debug in debugfs... > > > > This doesn't parse for me. > > Please illustrate further. > > mac80211 has Kconfig selectors for a bunch of verbose debug options. Now > you turn them on, but the messages still don't occur, you have to also > enable dynamic debug. This extra step not make any sense to most people > and I agree -- having fine-grained compile-time options only to have to > enable a coarse-grained runtime option seems odd. > > I'd much rather have a coarse-grained Kconfig option (for those people > who want to save the binary size) and then allow enabling pieces at > runtime -- see below. > > > > That doesn't make any sense at > > > all, and requires teaching everybody new tricks, so I'm basically > > > reverting it for now in favour of pr_info() instead of pr_debug(). > > > > Why not just add #define DEBUG? > > I guess that works? That works. > Doesn't really make a difference though. In reality, > most messages should be KERN_INFO anyway, so for those that aren't > hidden behind extra Kconfig options, we should use pr_info(). Why? Aren't these then possibly some mixture of errors or notices or info level messages? -- 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
