> -----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 : firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> >> 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
> > 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.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"