On 12/19/06, Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/20/06, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the right thing to do is not to introduce another level of debugging. > > > > People want to debug or they don't in my opinion. I think we should do > > away with ccid3_pr_debug and ccid2_pr_debug. I always turn them all on > > or all off when working with testing (or add my own statements in). > > If the way to go is a boolean, i.e. to debug or not to debug we have > to remove ccid{2,3}_pr_debug and stick to using dccp_pr_debug > everywhere, that would eliminate the loop as dccp.ko doesn't directly > uses any code from dccp_ipv[4,6]. ccid[2, 3] or tfrc. > Agree and that's what I prefer.> But I think that being able to debug just the dccp core, or just > ccid3, or just tfrc is better. > I'll go with your choice on this one. In the interim I'll carry on using dccp_pr_debug for tfrc debugging as short on time.
Agreed, in the short term just use dccp_pr_debug in tfrc, it should just work. - Arnaldo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
