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 6DBE8279 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAD120A for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:22:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D18F208AA for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:22:56 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Dave Jones Message-ID: <20150731182256.GA6508@kroah.com> References: <55BAE39F.9060705@oracle.com> <20150731165915.GA4995@roeck-us.net> <20150731170825.GA2721@kroah.com> <20150731171500.GC4995@roeck-us.net> <20150731181245.GA5969@kroah.com> <20150731181757.GA8747@codemonkey.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150731181757.GA8747@codemonkey.org.uk> 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 02:17:58PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:12:45AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:51:53PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I prefer that a dmesg collected in the simplest possible way, with no > > > special config or boot flags, be as useful as possible. So converting > > > to dynamic debug requires much more thought about which messages > > > should be always printed and which should become dynamic. > > > > Why would a debugging message ever not be dynamic? They are there for > > you to use, and turn off when you are done. If you want a user to > > report the output of them, then of course they should be dynamic so they > > can just write a line to a debugfs file and then start seeing them > > This implies a user knows ahead of time what bugs they are going to hit, > and which messages they need to enable. For hard-to-reproduce bugs, > or bugs that exhibit non-obvious symptoms, this isn't workable. Fair enough, but wouldn't those messages be "errors"? Anyway, this is way off-topic from the original thread, it all comes down to specifics of the message that is being written and the surrounding issues of why it would be written. thanks, greg k-h