On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Artem BityutskiyTrue. But it has checking code which may be enabled or disable.
<Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JFFS2 has the similar thing. I myself fixed bugs just by asking people
enabling them and sending the log. Very useful. This is why we also added
them to UBIFS - good JFFS2 experience.
Why? What is wrong with this? As I said, we found it very useful in JFFS2,
because I has been working with JFFS2 for _long_ time. Talk to David
Woodhouse and ask how many times that made him fix a bug just by having
people send a log. Why do you want to prevent us from having this?
First and foremost, JFFS2 uses BUG_ON and doesn't invent it's own
assert.
Furthermore, the debug tracing code prints out human-readableThe same is with UBIFS. We will make the amount of messages less,
text in well-thought of places.
But there simply is noWhat exactly you think is not-structured, we'll fix this.
comparison between JFFS2 and UBIFS debug logging code. The former is
cleanly structured whereas yours looks to be totally ad hoc.
But perhaps the problem will go away after you inject some sanity toThis means that when debugging is enabled, you'll have prints like:
stuff like this:
fs/ubifs/dir.c: dbg_gen("dent '%.*s' to ino %lu (nlink %d) in dir ino %lu",
fs/ubifs/dir.c: dbg_gen("dent '%.*s' from ino %lu (nlink %d) in dir ino %lu",
fs/ubifs/dir.c: dbg_gen("directory '%.*s', ino %lu in dir ino %lu",
dentry->d_name.len,
fs/ubifs/dir.c: dbg_gen("dent '%.*s', mode %#x in dir ino %lu",
fs/ubifs/dir.c: dbg_gen("dent '%.*s' in dir ino %lu",