From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD6D698 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24336207 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4FD208B6 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:43:43 -0700 From: Greg KH To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20150731174343.GA9609@kroah.com> References: <55BAE39F.9060705@oracle.com> <20150731165915.GA4995@roeck-us.net> <20150731170825.GA2721@kroah.com> <1438363601.2179.49.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438363601.2179.49.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: Sasha Levin , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:26:41AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 10:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:59:15AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > Mainly I'd like to talk about improving testing around the kernel, both by catching bugs > > > > > and by improving the quality of debug output that comes out of the kernel. > > > > > > > > What sort of debug output improvements are you interested in? I spend > > > > a fair amount of time converting to dev_printk and %pR. They make the > > > > > > I have been wondering about that, especially since dev_dbg() and > > > 'dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, ...)' are semantically different. Any reason > > > for preferring dev_printk() over dev_dbg() ? > > > > The opposite is true, please always use dev_dbg() as it properly ties > > into the overall kernel-wide dynamic debug infrastructure, providing a > > unified way to enable/disable debug messages, or even, compiling them > > out if none are wanted due to size constraints. > > Other than to confuse us all over minute details, is there a reason for > this difference to exist? dev_dbg() uses dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG) to build on, we can't delete dev_printk() from the tree, so we are stuck with both. If you can figure out a way to prevent this, that would be great. thanks, greg k-h