Re: Dynamic Debug module.ddebug fake param enhancements V4

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:22:11AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 06:25:18 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > Greg: Do you mind pushing the first (1/4, V4) and the last (4/4)
> > patch into your tree for linux-next and leave the two PNP patches
> > out, please.

I've applied them now.

> > More PNP related discussion, below.
> > 
> > On Monday 27 September 2010 17:09:18 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 27, 2010 02:25:46 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What do you think (dev_dbg vs printk(KERN_DEBUG...)?
> > ...
> > > With the exception of the ones in pnp/resource.c that I want to convert
> > > to dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG), I think all the pnp_dbg() uses are things
> > > I used during PNP development and haven't ever needed since.
> > 
> > Ok. Sounds sane.
> > I used the PNP parts as it nicely showed what the
> > module.ddebug boot param is doing, but I agree it hasn't much
> > advantage for PNP.
> > 
> > Whatabout compiling pnp in one module namespace, the first
> > of the two PNP patches?
> 
> [2/4] looks reasonable to me.

And this one.

> 
> > E.g. attached patch would be an on top patch which provides no
> > functional change, just that a pnp.debug would be a module param:
> > cat /sys/module/pnp/parameters/debug
> 
> As does the one below.

And this one.

So that left 3/4 out of the series applied to my tree.

If this is incorrect, please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/