Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread Leon Romanovsky
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:20 PM, David Howells wrote: > Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> >> Additionally, It looks like the output of these macros can be viewed by >> >> ftrace mechanism. >> > >> > *blink* It can? >> I was under strong impression that "function" and "function_graph" >> tracers will gi

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread David Howells
Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> Additionally, It looks like the output of these macros can be viewed by > >> ftrace mechanism. > > > > *blink* It can? > I was under strong impression that "function" and "function_graph" > tracers will give similar kenter/kleave information. Do I miss > anything impor

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread Leon Romanovsky
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, David Howells wrote: > Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> Blind conversion to pr_debug will blow the code because it will be always >> compiled in. > > No, it won't. Sorry, you are right. > >> Additionally, It looks like the output of these macros can be viewed by >> f

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread David Howells
Leon Romanovsky wrote: > Blind conversion to pr_debug will blow the code because it will be always > compiled in. No, it won't. > Additionally, It looks like the output of these macros can be viewed by ftrace > mechanism. *blink* It can? > Maybe we should delete them from mm/nommu.c as was po

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread Leon Romanovsky
Sorry for reposting. On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:31 PM, David Howells wrote: > > I can turn on all the macros in a file just be #defining __KDEBUG at the > top. > When I first did this, pr_xxx() didn't exist. > > Note that the macros in afs, cachefiles, fscache and rxrpc are more > complex > than a

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-18 Thread David Howells
Leon Romanovsky wrote: > During my work on NOMMU system (mm/nommu.c), I saw definition and > usage of kenter/kleave/kdebug macros. These macros are compiled as > empty because of "#if 0" construction. Because you only need them if you're debugging. They shouldn't, generally, be turned on upstre

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-16 Thread Leon Romanovsky
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2015-05-16 at 20:01 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: [] >> My question is how we should handle such duplicated debug print code? >> As possible solutions, I see five options: >> 1. Leave it as is. >> 2. Move it to general include file (for

Re: [RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-16 Thread Joe Perches
On Sat, 2015-05-16 at 20:01 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > Dear David, > > During my work on NOMMU system (mm/nommu.c), I saw definition and > usage of kenter/kleave/kdebug macros. These macros are compiled as > empty because of "#if 0" construction. > 45 #if 0 > 46 #define kenter(FMT, ...) \

[RFC] Refactor kenter/kleave/kdebug macros

2015-05-16 Thread Leon Romanovsky
Dear David, During my work on NOMMU system (mm/nommu.c), I saw definition and usage of kenter/kleave/kdebug macros. These macros are compiled as empty because of "#if 0" construction. 45 #if 0 46 #define kenter(FMT, ...) \ 47 printk(KERN_DEBUG "==> %s("FMT")\n", __func__, ##__VA_ARGS