On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 03:09:43PM -0500, J William Piggott wrote: > > > On 11/19/2017 04:51 AM, Sami Kerola wrote: > > That is probably fine as intermediate issue fix. It would be nice to > > see in longer term move to use debug.h. Then ctl->debug could > > be made single bit switch that turns on messaging it does, and > > all internal developer debugging stuff would be done with > > HWCLOCK_DEBUG_ bits. Assuming done this way adding more > > debuging levels is appropriate. > > > > FYI login-utils/su-common.c is pretty good DBG example. > > > > Hi Sami, I agree and so does Karel. He brought it up when I first > started contributing to ul back in 2014. > > https://marc.info/?l=util-linux-ng&m=141415311703313&w=2 > Karel Zak wrote: > > Good point, then it would be better to [keep] --debug independent on > > HWCLOCK_DEBUG=. > > > > But I still think that for so complex tool like hwclock we need a > > real debug output for developers / bug reporters. The current --debug > > is more like --verbose we have in another tools. > > It's on my radar and TODO list. I just do not know when I will get to > it. I've been trying to reduce the current 'debug' output as I go. > Hopefully that will make splitting verbose/debug and adding debug.h easier. Yes, the --debug is just bad option name, it should be --verbose and use HWCLOCK_DEBUG= for the real debugs stuff. Karel -- Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
