> -----Message d'origine----- > De : adrian.ch...@gmail.com [mailto:adrian.ch...@gmail.com] De la part > de Adrian Chadd > Envoyé : samedi 3 août 2013 21:50 > À : Cedric GROSS > Cc : email@example.com > Objet : Re: [IWN] Reviw split 2 > > On 3 August 2013 12:43, Cedric GROSS <c...@cgross.info> wrote: > > >> Ok, why'd you change the debug print macro to check if the debug > >> flags match the check, rather than if the debug flags are set in the > check? > >> > >> ie > >> > >> (f) & (v) > >> > >> versus > >> ( (f) & (v) == (v) ) > >> > >> ? > > > > It's for reducing tracing verbosity and just do trace when associate > > with another IWN_DEBUG_* So if you wish to debug only XMIT, trace > also > > print only associate with that level (ie IWN_DEBUG_TRACE | > > IWN_DEBUG_XMIT) > > Ok. I like the general idea, but I think overloading that for the > general case is against POLA. > > Eg, ath(4), ath_hal(4), net80211(4) all have the mask idea, rather than > the exact match idea. So there are cases where multiple bits are set in > a debug mask (eg some INPUT and 11N flags in net80211) since they're > relevant for both. > > So I'd like to come up with an alternative way to do trace debugging > like you ask. > > Maybe what we should do is add a DPRINTF_TRACE() macro for things that > are specifically _trace_ events, then have a separate trace bitmap for > trace debugging.
Ok, I'll do that. > > > > -adrian _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"