Re: [PATCH] conditionalize some boring buffer_head checks

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 02:27:54PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:25:39 -0500 Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> | On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 05:10:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> | > Andrew Morton wrote:
> | > >Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> | > >
> | > >>I would rather not kill the code in submit_bh() outright, just disable 
> | > >>it for non-filesystem developers.
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >submit_bh() is a slowpath ;) The one in mark_buffer_dirty() will be called
> | > >more often, possibly others.  Kill!
> | > 
> | > Jens seems to like the debugging checks, so here's an alterna-patch.
> | > 
> | > 	Jeff
> | > 
> | > 
> | 
> | > ===== arch/alpha/Kconfig 1.36 vs edited =====
> | > +++ edited/arch/alpha/Kconfig	Wed Apr 14 04:58:08 2004
> | > @@ -690,6 +690,13 @@
> | >  	  Say Y here only if you plan to use gdb to debug the kernel.
> | >  	  If you don't debug the kernel, you can say N.
> | >  
> | > +config DEBUG_BUFFERS
> | > +	bool "Enable additional filesystem buffer_head checks"
> | > +	depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> | > +	help
> | > +	  If you say Y here, additional checks are performed that aid
> | > +	  filesystem development.
> | > +
> | >  endmenu
> | 
> | Sticking this in arch/*/Kconfig seems silly (as does much of the
> | duplication in said files). Can we stick this and other debug bits
> | under the kallsyms option in init/Kconfig instead? Or alternately move
> | debugging bits into their own file that gets included as appropriate.
> 
> Yes, I'll jump onto that if noone else does it.
> Matt, are you making a patch for this?

It's all yours.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/